Triggers:
mistakes
Indicators:
[ do you, + by mistakes, do you ] mean just like honest mistakes /{c or } do you think they are deliberate sorts of things?
Negotiations:
{f uh, } i think both. /{f uh, } by deliberate [ i, + {f uh, } i ] mean [ mistake, + mistakes ] of omission [ or, + {f uh, } <noise> or, ] {f uh, } biased toward [ a particular view point + --
yeah. /yeah. /
-- a particular liberal --
yeah. /
-- view point ] that they have. /
yeah. /
{d so, } {f uh, } {f uh, } to give you an example, {f uh, } we will go out of the printing media. /i know of cases where, {f uh, } we have one television media where they will show <noise> clippings from one event and describe another event but, with [ the + the ] attempt to give you the impression that what they're talking about is the same thing they are showing you.
{f huh. } /
which is sort of like a deliberate bias.
{f huh. }
See entire sequence
Triggers:
businesses (2)
Indicators:
{f uh, } do you mean businesses from the point of view [ as, + ] [ of, + of ] selling things to a # consumer and # --
-- then being responsible for the sales tax?
Negotiations:
no. /businesses, {f uh } --
or purchasing. /
-- if purchasing things mail order, /[ if, + if ] i'm a computer consulting firm and i see [ these, + this ] great deal on forty-six mother boards, {f uh, } [ from, + from ] say utah. /{f um, } [ i, + i ] might buy the mother boards from utah but then still have to pay pennsylvania sales tax. /my [ a-, + accounting ] department will at the end of the month. /[ i think that [ i-, + i-, ] + i think that's ] the way things work in pennsylvania. /{c and } i know they work that way [ in, + {f uh, } {d say } here in ] d c. /
yeah.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
security
Indicators:
you mean [ security, + job security? ] /
Negotiations:
job security, /yes. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
step classes
Indicators:
# step classes? # /
Negotiations:
# toning classes, # /yes. /
what's that? /
[ it's, + {f uh, } it's ] a new, {f uh, } form i think, /{f uh, } it's like low impact aerobics /{c but } [ at, + ] it ... -/
{f oh, } instead of hopping and jumping you just step /
uh-huh. /yeah, /[ you, + you ] have a step /{c and } you literally step up on the step and move your arms, /[ [ [ it's, + it's, ] + it's, ] + it's ] new, /
{f huh. } /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
toning
Indicators:
{d now } [ what's, + what's ] toning? /is that [ lift-, + lifting ] weights? /
Negotiations:
it's, {f um, } {d like } isolated movements for [ each muscle + certain muscles groups, ] /
{f oh, } okay. /
you can do with, -/
isometrics, stuff like that. /
yeah, /[ you can do it with certain, + {d you know, } you can do it with weights ] if you wanted to /{c but, } {d you know, } you leave out of there - /usually the next morning, if you haven't done it in a while, you wake up the next morning /you're like, {f oh, } no, /what did i do to myself /{c and } your whole body aches, {d you know. } /
yeah. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
autocrossing
Indicators:
autocrossing is, - /what kind of track is that? /
Negotiations:
{f uh, } just like a, {f uh, } set up a lot of times /{c and } it's like really large, {f uh, } parking lots.
okay. /{c and } you [ put up, + set up ] the --
and pylons --
-- track, pylons. /
-- and things. /
okay. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
dialing services
Indicators:
what are dialing services? /
Negotiations:
where they, {f uh, } intend to sell you things. /
{f oh, } {f oh, } where people [ just, + just ] call you. /
uh-huh. /uh-huh. /{c and } leave again that canned message on the, -/
See entire sequence
Triggers:
surrogacy
Indicators:
what do you mean? /
Negotiations:
{f uh, } deliberate childbirth by surrogate mother. /
{f oh, } yeah. /
sort of rent-a-mom, /[ to be, + {d you know, }
yeah. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
super titles
Indicators:
what is that? /
Negotiations:
{d well, } [ they, + they ] give [ an, + {f uh, } an ] english translation [ on a, + on a ] screen up above the stage. /
{f oh, } i didn't know that. /
yeah. /
that can help people like me. /
<throat_clearing> in fact, they even do that for operas [ sung, + sung ] in english, because it is hard to understand the words sometimes. /
<laughter> {d well, } i can understand that. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
world music (2)
Indicators:
what do you mean by world music? /
Negotiations:
{d well, } world music is, {f um, } - /[ a lot of the, + a lot of ] [ where they, + where they ] make music that they adapt [ [ to a, + to another kind of, ] + to another type of ] listener. /
uh-huh. /
{f uh, } for example, let's say you're taking {d like } an original brazilian form of music [ and, + ] with a certain style, /{c and then } you try to make it a little bit more listenable for, let's say another audience, let's say a north american. /
uh-huh. /
{c and, then } when they hear it, [ [ it, + it's a really, ] + it's ] another form of music, and,
{f um. } /
{d you know, } sort of, {f um, } trying to draw out the best sources. /[ the, + the ] best of every type of music. /
right. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
needlepoint
Indicators:
{f oh, } what's that? /
Negotiations:
{d well, } it's an italian, {f um, } needlework, [ using, + using ] the {f uh, } - /i started to say the canvas, /{c but } the, {f uh, } {f huh, } - /what kind of cloth uses that. /[ i, + i've ] just gone blank. /{c but } it's used with yarn, /{c and } it usually takes long stitches over two or three openings in the cloth -- /
huh. /
-- {c and } you weave intricate patterns and use different colors. /{d like } it could be a flame stitch where [ so + ] rather than drawing a picture you're making a design like a geometric or whatever, /{c and } it was used quite often in the colonial times [ to, + {f uh, } {f uh, } to ] upholster chairs, and so forth, as well as the crewel, {f um, } embroidery work that was done on them. /
{d wow, } that's interesting. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
translations
Indicators:
{d now, } translations, what do you mean, translations [ of, + of, ] -/
Negotiations:
{f um, } {d well, } [ where, + where, ] for instance, {f um, } a baudelaire poem that was written,
# yeah. # /
# in # the french and then has been translated into english by,
# uh-huh. # /
# various # people. /
{f oh, } i see. /
{c and } the translations are all so different from one another. /
all different. /
uh-huh. /
{f oh, } that's interesting. /
{c so } it's multiple translations of single works /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
camping
Indicators:
do you tent camp /{c or } do you have a camper? /
Negotiations:
{f oh } no, /no, /no /a tent. /
that's what i ha-, {d you know, } - /that's how i camp too. /that's how i define camping <laughter>. /
me too <laughter>. /you're really roughing it. /
<laughter> [ the rest, + the rest ] of that is [ re-, + really ] not the same. /
yeah. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
pepper
Indicators:
is it cayenne pepper, you mean? /
Negotiations:
cayenne? /
yes. /
uh-huh. /
uh-huh. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
river
Indicators:
are you talking about [ a, + a ] real river, creek? /
Negotiations:
no /it's a creek, /they've put little fountains in and such. /
{d well } that's nice. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
suspense movies
Indicators:
what do you mean /[ {d like, } + {d like } ] are you talking about movies # like die hard two. # /
Negotiations:
# {f oh, } jagged edge, # /
okay, /yeah, /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
disturbing
Indicators:
a disturbing movie, /how do you mean? /
Negotiations:
{d well, } it was, - /{f um, } <lipsmack> let's see. /the, {f um, } - /[ it's, + it's ] different, /[ it's kind of, + it's ] an [ action adventure kind of, + {d you know, } shoot 'em up kind of ] film. /
right. /
{c but } it's with women in it instead of men /{c so } [ that's kind of a -- +
a switcheroo, {f huh? } /
-- that's kind of a ] twist on the normal thing. /{c and } it made me think a lot about, {d you know, } - /you would applaud bruce willis in die hard if he was doing this /{c but } you might not be [ so -- +
right. /
-- {d you know, } so ] encouraging,
<laughter>.
of (( susan sarandon and then gena davis )) when they do it. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
computers
Indicators:
{f oh, } the calculators you mean. /
Negotiations:
{e i mean } [ ca-, + calculators, ] /i beg your pardon. /
yeah, /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
brisket
Indicators:
what is brisket? /
Negotiations:
brisket? /it's a part of the cow that they used to throw away. /
{d huh. } /
it's just tough as a boot -- /
oh. /
-- {c and, } {f uh, } {d you know, } they used to use it for leather, i think <laughter>. /
# {f oh, } my goodness. # /
# {e i mean, } no, /# i was kidding. /
yeah. /
{c but, } {f uh, } [ it's, + it's ] a part of the loin, {d you know, } the rib cage, /{c and } it has a lot of muscle in it and a lot of,
<throat_clearing>.
gristle where it attaches to the ribs, /{c so } it's [ really, + really ] a tough piece of meat -- /
{f oh, } my goodness. /
-- {c but } it's so tasty, you can't stand it. /
{f huh. } /
{c so } you just take it /{c and } you marinate it for a couple of days -- /
{c and } that softens it up, huh. /
-- (( )) .
{f huh. } /
{c and then, } {f uh, } you just put it in the oven, /takes about four hours to cook one. /they weigh about anywhere from ten to twenty pounds. /
{f oh, } gee. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
skidding control
Indicators:
skidding control, /you mean the antilock brake system? /
Negotiations:
yeah, /it's kind of a traction control, i think they call it. /
yeah. /
[ it's, + it's ] not just antilock brake. /i think that's already on most of them, /{c but } --
oh, /this is [ a, + ] {f uh, }
-- there is a further traction control, {f uh, } /
{f uh, } probably suspension tied into --
yeah. /
-- the brakes. /
[ {c and, } + {c and } ] also the suspension can be raised for driving, like in the ice and snow. /it can raise the car's center up a little bit.
{f um. } /
for going under --
yeah. /
-- a lot of piled up stuff if you were up in michigan <laughter> or somewhere. /
yeah, /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
heavy metal
Indicators:
[ what, + what ] kind of heavy metal are we talking about? /what, -/
Negotiations:
we're talking about [ what they, + what they ] call hard rock. /
okay, /{d like, } give me some examples. /
{d like, } for example, let's see, {f uh, } bad company, /what, -/
{f oh, }
See entire sequence
Triggers:
liberal
Indicators:
{f oh, } liberal, /[ by, + what do you mean by ] liberal, {f um. } /
Negotiations:
liberal politically, /i'm, {d you know, } {d like } pretty left wing [ demo-, + democrat, ] /{c so. } -/
{d well } {d see, } i don't know anything about politics. /
{f oh, } you don't? /
{f uh, } [ what's the main, + what's the main ] difference between republicans and democrats? /
okay, /{d well, } <breathing> there's a lot of them, {f um, } /it depends on what issue you're talking about. /{c but } democrats [ are, + on a lot of issues are ] more liberal than republicans, /{c and } {d well } [ it used to be, + <sigh> it's ] kind of hard to say now, especially after desert storm, /{c but, } {f um, } i think back in the [ ei-, + times ] when, {f uh, } my political opinions were being formed {d like } [ in viet-, + during the vietnam ] war and stuff,
uh-huh. /
the republicans were more, {d you know, } what they called hawks, which is more {d like } aggressive in war and more pro war,
uh-huh. /
and pro aggression /{c and, } {f um, } the democrats were the doves, /they were more for peace. /{c and } i'm not sure how much that holds true anymore, /i think, {d you know, } the issues are, -/
okay, /{c and } you vote for the democrats /{c or, } -/
yeah, /
usually. /
yeah /{c and } democrats usually are [ su-, + more supportive ] of public assistance programs, /
uh-huh. /
[ {c and, } + {c and } ] programs to, {f um, } - /the big republican thing is that [ they don't, + they vote ] for less government, /they want less government involvement,
uh-huh. /
in society /{c and so } they're [ more, + less ] apt to vote in, {d you know, } more aid to people, /{c or } [ more, + {f uh, } they're less ] apt to vote in programs that involve the government running things. /
{f huh, } okay. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
democrat
Indicators:
{f uh, } [ what's the main, + what's the main ] difference between republicans and democrats? /
Negotiations:
okay, /{d well, } <breathing> there's a lot of them, {f um, } /it depends on what issue you're talking about. /{c but } democrats [ are, + on a lot of issues are ] more liberal than republicans, /{c and } {d well } [ it used to be, + <sigh> it's ] kind of hard to say now, especially after desert storm, /{c but, } {f um, } i think back in the [ ei-, + times ] when, {f uh, } my political opinions were being formed {d like } [ in viet-, + during the vietnam ] war and stuff,
uh-huh. /
the republicans were more, {d you know, } what they called hawks, which is more {d like } aggressive in war and more pro war,
uh-huh. /
and pro aggression /{c and, } {f um, } the democrats were the doves, /they were more for peace. /{c and } i'm not sure how much that holds true anymore, /i think, {d you know, } the issues are, -/
okay, /{c and } you vote for the democrats /{c or, } -/
yeah, /
usually. /
yeah /{c and } democrats usually are [ su-, + more supportive ] of public assistance programs, /
uh-huh. /
[ {c and, } + {c and } ] programs to, {f um, } - /the big republican thing is that [ they don't, + they vote ] for less government, /they want less government involvement,
uh-huh. /
in society /{c and so } they're [ more, + less ] apt to vote in, {d you know, } more aid to people, /{c or } [ more, + {f uh, } they're less ] apt to vote in programs that involve the government running things. /
{f huh, } okay. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
charge
Indicators:
service charge you mean? /
Negotiations:
yeah. /
yearly fee, /yeah. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
camping
Indicators:
# what do you think, what kind of # --
-- camping, {f uh, } are you talking about? /do you go out, /{c and } is camping for you in a motor home, or a trailer, /{c or } do you actually put up a tent /{c or, } -/
Negotiations:
one of the ones that you pull along -- /
{f oh, } okay, /{c so } you have, -/
-- {c and } [ then pop-u-, + ] is it pop-up? /
yeah. /
pop-up. /
a pop-up trailer, huh. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
farming
Indicators:
you mean, really trying to plant something? /that's what you're saying? /
Negotiations:
yeah, /
farming? /
'cause they're farmers. /these,
# oh. # /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
lax
Indicators:
more lax? /
Negotiations:
uh-huh, /relaxed --
uh-huh. /
-- and laid back and stuff /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
bring (2)
Indicators:
# when you # say bring in, do you mean that they negotiated with people [ to, + to ] come in and, {f uh, } ask for your support? /
Negotiations:
no, /not necessarily. /{f um, } it can be in-house people who help you handle # x amount of dollars. # /
# {f oh, } okay. /# uh-huh. /even though they didn't bring it in, they help it once it's there. /
right /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
news
Indicators:
# television news? # /
Negotiations:
# pretty much # a lot of television, {f um, } /
is it, {f uh, } c n n or headline news or just local,
# {f uh, } # /
# news # /{c or, } -/
i watch a little bit of everything. /i like to tune [ into, + to ] c n n because, {f uh, } {d you know, } you can tune in {d like } any time of day and pretty much get the update on,
# right. # /
# everything, #
# right. # /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
personal history
Indicators:
you mean your history in regards to, {f uh } --
-- the charge card company or something like that? /
Negotiations:
{d well, } {f um. } -/
{d well, } yes, /{d well, } for instance, yes, {f um, } /{c and } they'll probably goes into other things, like, {d you know, } your records with the government or utility companies or anything. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
pop up tents
Indicators:
you mean that you put on a truck or what? /
Negotiations:
no. /it's a little trailer you pull behind your car /{c and, } {f uh, }
{f oh } yeah, /# yeah. # /
# {d you # know, } [ you, + ] the lid pops off, /
<noise> <<like glass with ice>>.
the little tent comes up the top -- /
uh-huh. /
-- {c and } it had two double beds in it. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
light (2)
Indicators:
oh. /light menu, you mean like cooked light or, -/
Negotiations:
{f uh, } l i t e, {d like, } {f uh, } {f uh, } things that aren't as heavy a meal. /
{f oh, } i see. /
it, -/
# uh-huh. # /
# [ that, + ] # you get more, {f uh, } fruit and maybe cottage cheese or a chicken breast or things that aren't as, {f uh, } - /they're not breaded /{c and } they're not fried /{c and } they're not, -/
not a lot of gravy --
yeah. /
-- and things like that. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
fishing season
Indicators:
what's the season? /april to [ sep-, + october ] or something like that? /
Negotiations:
that sounds about right -- /
uh-huh. /
-- uh-huh, /pretty close. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
lamps
Indicators:
you mean the clocks. /
Negotiations:
yeah, /clocks. /
yeah. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
social security
Indicators:
{d well, } what would be the difference between that and social security? /
Negotiations:
{f uh, } {d well } social security's going to go to way, i think /{c and } [ you can, + {e or } you can ] invest your own money. /you have no control over your social security. /{c and } it's not paid for by the current, /{d like } when, - /say we retire after the year two thousand, social security's paid for by the twenty-five year olds. /it's there. /
yeah, /yeah. /
you don't have to depend on anybody to be putting that money in for you, {d you know. } /
# uh-huh. # /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
[ invinc-, + invisible ] fencing
invisible fencing
Indicators:
no, /what is that? /
Negotiations:
[ it's, + {f uh, } it's ] a system you can put in your yard where you bury these little, {f uh, } transducers or emitters in your yard --
oh. /
-- at the perimeter /{c and then } they wear a collar with a special little attachment on it /{c and } if they get too close to that perimeter, [ it + --
oh. /
-- it ] zaps them. /
boy. /
See entire sequence
Triggers:
project engineer (2)
Indicators:
what is a project engineer ?
Negotiations:
and i 've told them what a b e s one is and they said , why ? why are works ones different then ? why could n'tthey are n't .m s ones be project engineers ? in works ? and yet in b e s they 're only twos and threes ?could be anybody .well . project engineers areyou 've lost me .t t o and s t o level .surely not .but you would erm you would allow an s t o , to sign a v o of any value ?the only people who signpoint , good point .v os are those who are delegated within the contract to domm .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
functional group
Indicators:
what is the fu ah , but what is , it 's the wrong word ! what is the functional group ? i 'm not having a go at you , do n't be so sluggish ! what is the functional group in ether ?
Negotiations:
mm .which you 've got in both .yeah .the methoxy and the ethoxy are not functional groups . it 's that arrangement of[unclear]saturated carbon oxygen saturated carbons that 's the functional group . irrespective of ho , how many more carbons are attached to those two carbons . it 's tricky ! erm uncle stuart , long time no [unclear] .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
historical linguistics
Indicators:
what is it though , what 's historical linguistics ? is it like what we do in old english or not ?
Negotiations:
yeah it is .that sounds excellent .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
week
Indicators:
that 's not a week
Negotiations:
five day week , well , five day week .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
dietotectalitis
it
Indicators:
no . no . that 's not the dietotectalitis
Negotiations:
ah .
that 's not the dietotectalitis
[unclear] [unclear] nervousness on the bowels .
no , it 's the nervousness causing the trouble with the bowels .
ah , [unclear] [unclear]
oh , the other , all that 's up here . and goes down the way .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
strictly controlled
Indicators:
and what we can see is that mr williamson 's interpretation of strictly controlled means not normally be permitted . and that is not strict control that is not normally be permitted .
Negotiations:
strictly controlled should mean consented after the most careful deliberation and under the most carefully contrived er conditions . north yorkshire 's interpretation i repeat is not strictly controlled means not normally be permitted .
erm the second point i 'd like to make is er we danced round this phrase presumption this morning , i 've tried to avoid using it because its its it gets all sorts of er connotations going . i read in the planning press that the newbury district council managed to browbeat the the department of environment into accepting the phrase in their in a local plan , so perhaps presumptions are er the word presumption may or may not be acceptable , but then to extend it into saying well you ca n't even say , not normally be acceptable , and , not normally be er agreeable , for any sort of policy er means that strategic policies or general policy approaches are simply ruled out ri right across the board . and i 'm sure that 's not really er acceptable .
and if you take into account that the words , a general presumption against , were common phraseology in policies in the nineteen eighties and we now use the er [unclear] play against presumption we now have to use the phrase , will not normally be permitted .
terry heselton sel selby district . erm it seems it seems to me that wha what 's crucial here is the er the spirit behind the policy or or rather the the way in which it 's going to be interpreted .
frank broughton ministry of agriculture . i think it was mr heselton raised the er issue earlier of the wording in the explanatory memorandum and er [unclear] would certainly regard that as being very important in the interpretation of this policy . er being an agriculturalist rather than a planner i tend to get a bit confused by higher planning semantics of the difference between strict control and presumption against not normally . er so what i did was something a bit simpler than that i just went through the memorandum and and ticked off what i regarded as restrictive statements as against positive ones . er and i think i came up with six negatives and and one very feeble positive . and er if i just run through them in in the amended version as i understand it . paragraph one talks about generally preventing inappropriate development . paragraph two er development generally should be the exception rather than the rule er building in the open countryside should be strictly controlled . paragraph three , discourage most forms of development . paragraph four , a limited number of exceptions and paragraph seven , promotion of a restrictive approach to development . now to counteract that the only positive one i could find was , while accepting that some development in the open countryside may prove to be necessary . now it seemed to me that was n't a very erm reasonable balance and er comparing that with the with the secretary of state 's recent pronouncements where he talks about local planning authorities needing to breathe fresh life into the countryside through their development plans and i want local planning authorities in rural areas to give the need to diversify the rural economy as much priority priority in their thinking as protecting the countryside and the two go hand in hand , and comparing those two er points i i would i would put to north yorkshire the question , do they think that the explanatory memorandum is is consistent with that er policy statement from the secretary of state ?
david collier national farms union . i share the reservations of erm mr broughton about the the tone of the policy erm and as professor lock was concerned about the interpretation of strictly controlled , erm we are too . erm i think if someone er told me i need to control my car whilst driving i would have erm one hand on the steering wheel . if somebody told me to strictly control the car i would put both hands on the steering wheel but not necessarily both feet on the er brake pedal . erm i certainly er would agree that the starting point would be erm a policy which talks of development being permitted in certain circumstances erm and that the county council wishes to support development which benefits the rural economy erm subject to satisfying certain criteria . and i think that to a large extent erm an alternative wording that that we 've been working on would erm meet those concerns . erm i 'll be happy to distribute copies but perhaps i could run through that draft quickly now erm and go through what i would say are the advantages . the alternative we suggest is , development in the open countryside outside the national parks , areas of outstanding natural beauty , areas that heritage coast and greenbelt , will be strictly controlled . proposals intended to benefit the rural economy will normally be supported provided that they would not unacceptably detract from the character and appearance and general amenity of the surrounding area . and you will have noted that er much of the wording in that er er latter sentence is taken from the the latest draft of the county council 's suggested policy . i would say that the five advantages of our alternative draft is that er it makes it clear that the policy applies to land outside the national parks and so forth but with less repetition than the proposal put forward by the county council . erm it 's secondly more positive in its tone than that erm presently before us . thirdly that there is no requirement to demonstrate a need to locate development in open countryside erm and we 've been reminded this morning that erm one of the erm flaws in the policy put forward back in nineteen seventy nine or eighty erm appears to be that it erm required , certainly in the explanatory memorandum , that the development be erm essential erm to er essentially have a countryside location . erm the fourth advantage i would say is that it focuses on the balance between the need to promote rural enterprise and the need to protect the countryside . erm and finally , erm in an effort to make it er acceptable , wherever possible it makes use of the wording already agreed between the county council and interested parties .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
feeling
Indicators:
feeling ?
Negotiations:
yeah feeling . now those terms are a bit peculiar . you always get trouble with them in psychological tests , cos you either [unclear] use terms which nobody knows what they mean , or you use terms which people have meanings for and that 's not what you actually mean by them . and feeling does n't refer to emotion as such . this dimension is about erm how you prefer to make decisions . you 've perceived something you 've now got to decide what you 're going to do or whether you 're going to do anything . and the difference between the two is in terms of the material you prefer to work with . and the er it 's all rational , so it 's what sort of material do you prefer to exercise your rationality on . and the thinking people prefer to use impersonal objective material .
mm .
whereas the feeling people prefer subjective personal
mm .
material . so you 've go got a situation where if somebody wants to change something they 're actually , you know maybe it 's something you do in a job or something like this , and somebody says we , we really ought to change this . or it might be something sort of domestic like maybe you go shopping every same day every week or something . erm and somebody says well you , you know , you should change that . erm then the thinking person 's sort of preferred response is to erm seek a tight definition of what the change actually is . erm so they 'd wan na know well you know if it 's a shopping change then erm , do you want me to change the day ? do you want me to change what i buy , do you want me to change the time i do it ? do you want me to change the place i go to ? what exactly is it that
mm .
you 're , you 're , you 're saying that i 've got to do ? erm and how 'll that effect what went on before . it may be there 's some sort of sequence to these , this activity . erm and how does it effect what comes after ? so it 's a very logical impersonal sort of approach .
mm .
okay ? now the feeling person on the other hand faced with this sort of suggestion would immediately start saying , well erm why are we going to do this ? er who for whom is it a benefit ? or who sees meaning in this change ? for whom is it of value ? is it going to benefit the shop keeper ? me the , the customer ? or you , some of the other people maybe on whose behalf i buy things ?
mm .
or , you know , who , who is going to benefit from it ? and how are the people in it ? so , so really you 're looking at the values in it you see
mm .
which are essentially subjective and also the people , how are the people who are affected by this , actually going to feel about it ? you know , are they actually going to erm er see it as a positive er step ? or are they gon na see it as negative and disruptive ? and maybe some people will see one way and some people see it another way . but er er concentrating on the personal , the subjective .
mm . yeah .
do you do you get an idea ?
yeah .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
money (3)
Indicators:
money can be any form of liquid currency. it just so happens that the money you're familiar with is printed by governments but that isn't inherently true of money.
Negotiations:
money inevitably emerges in society with or without a legal system because the only alternative is direct bartering which becomes less and less feasible as society grows.
there is such a thing as a substance which is understood to have intrinsic value. gold is an example in many places throughout history. it can be used as a medium of exchange in an abstraction of bartering, in a way that is similar to the use of money.
but when it manifests in the form of uniformly crafted objects that are by definition interchangeable with each other, it does so through the mechanism of a legal system.
the only possible exception i can think of is cryptocurrency like bitcoin, about which we could have a very interesting but totally irrelevant discussion about whether code is law.
but the main take-away is that money has never manifested in a way that was not explicitly within, and built on the context of, a discrete, discernible legal system.
yes, you're right. bartering becomes unfeasible as society grows. the mechanism by which the increased complexity of society is sustained **is** government. when people in a community collectively agree on sets of rules to all follow (like: all the shiny metal disks stamped with this picture of the emperor's face are interchangeable, but nobody is allowed to forge them without permission) that is governance. that is law.
there's no escaping it: literally the difference between money and other media of exchange is that it's regulated by an explicit collective agreement among the group using it -- which is what law is.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
cheated
cheat (3)
Indicators:
cheating doesn't always mean sex with another person. if someone was married to someone who had fallen in love with another person and was pursuing an emotional or a physical relationship that didn't include sex with them, isn't that a form of cheating?
Negotiations:
sure - i'm not arguing with your personal perspective. i agree that it's a case-by-cases basis issue, but in general, it feels like people are putting a *lot* of emphasis on sex in relationships - maybe too much, to the detriment of the relationship.
yes, but i didn't specify what form of cheating. it's still a breach of trust in your situation. if she had fallen in love with another, and told me and we had a conversation about it, i might be hurt, sad, angry, jealous even, but i would still trust her because she respected me enough to bring it up and trusted that i would be able to have a conversation about it.
sorry, yes. i meant physical/ sexual cheating [which, in my mind, is less of a transgression than the emotional kind you're referring to]
See entire sequence
Triggers:
married (9)
marriages
marriage
Indicators:
in my opinion, that isn't what marriage is about. filling a box saying that you are married isn't what marriage is about. it is an emotional attachment to another person. no state can truly ever take that away from two people.
Negotiations:
[sta-cite]> the state doesn't consider them married. they get zero benefits to be married.
[end-cite]do you need benefits to get married? if your perspective marriage is defined by the benefits that you receive from the state then your perspiration is distorted. i am completely agreeing with you that the civil liberties of a gay couple when compared to the civil liberties of a straight couple are not equal and that this is a problem. however they still are married, not through the eyes of the state but through their own.
in the u.s., a marriage is a legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws. on a governmental standpoint, it has **nothing** to do with love.
[sta-cite]> in my opinion, that isn't what marriage is about.
[end-cite]doesn't matter. legally, that's precisely what it is about. it's taking two separate legal entities and joining them into one. marriage is a social and legal construct, first and foremost. the concept of a marriage as a bond of love is actually quite recent.
[sta-cite]>in my opinion, that isn't what marriage is about. filling a box saying that you are married isn't what marriage is about. it is an emotional attachment to another person. no state can truly ever take that away from two people.
[end-cite]except if your husband or wife isn't a citizen and the only way for you to stay in the same country together is to be legally married so you can sponsor him or her.
for bi-national couples, legal marriage is often the difference between whether they can live together as a family or not. it's a huge freaking deal.
[sta-cite]> i am completely agreeing with you that the civil liberties of a gay couple when compared to the civil liberties of a straight couple are not equal and that this is a problem.
[end-cite]okay, then your argument (or view if you prefer) is pointless. you are just saying that we shouldn't say that it's a marriage issue because by the definition you are using, they are already married. that's just silly. when i (and it appears most of the commentators here) say "marriage" we are talking about the legally sanctioned version of marriage which provides those certain civil liberties. marriage has a legal definition, that's what we are fighting for and that is what the media is talking about.
in short: the legal version of marriage is the only one that matters.
well said.
they aren't married. at all. so when the state looks at their pairing at times like if one person is in the hospital and such, they are just two people. their love doesn't matter.
i get what you're trying to say here but if it was really the same you would see hetrosexual couples forgo getting married with actual marriage licenses, but you never see that happen.
[sta-cite]> it is an emotional attachment to another person. no state can truly ever take that away from two people.
[end-cite]that isn't marriage, that's love. a man and a woman who do not love each other can get married. a man who loves a man cannot get married in many areas. it would be very hard for a government to say "you cannot love people of the same gender", but it can say "you cannot sign a contract binding yourself legally to a person of the same gender."
if you want to argue that marriage should not be a legal institution, that is a different cmv. marriage, as it stands, carries significant legal benefits that cannot be conferred upon some gay couples no matter how strong their emotional bond is.
i'm not entirely sure if op came here to discuss his actual cmv topic. nearly all of his comments in the thread are arguing about what marriage 'is' and whether it's a legal term or an emotional one.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
art (5)
rt
Indicators:
so you define "art" by what is in a museum? by what some people will pay for something?
Negotiations:
true, but why do you find willem de kooning's [tree in naples](http://imgur.com/4tgo0ok) in a museum and worth millions of dollars, whereas the same thing made by a toddler wouldn't be there?
they both look the same. so what makes one greater than the other?
no, i define art as something that makes me feel something beyond what the object is.
as i said in a reply to someone else:
if someone painted a piece made of random splats entirely out of blood, i would be thinking about the blood, and the violence needed to get the blood.
but paint randomly put on a canvas doesn't make me question anything like that. it's something a tiny child does, and has no greater meaning to anyone but the artist than something a toddler would make.
so why is one held in such high regard, whereas we're not framing every toddler's painting?
[sta-cite]> no, i define art as something that makes me feel something beyond what the object is.
[end-cite]this is close to what i define art as.
but then you go back to "regard"....
jackson pollock splattered paint to give the viewer a "sense of the moment" both moments really... the moment of creation, and the moment of looking at it.
my definition of "art" is: being aware that you are seeing something beautiful.
"art" only means what you think it means.
not it means what you've read the "artist" intended it to mean.
nor it only means something if people will pay a lot for it.
i can be aware of beauty looking at a toddler's splatters, or even a toddler.
art doesn't even have to be an object.
art for me, is when i can notice and am aware of noticing beauty.
∆ i like this description.
i suppose i just don't notice the beauty in art that all looks the same to me, especially that which doesn't have a historical significance or context.
similar to the way you'll stop seeing the beauty of the place you live after a while, the same thing probably happens with certain modern art styles.
though i will say that people who splat paint for no reason nowadays probably aren't doing it for the same revolutionary reasons that several artists did in the past.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
evil
Indicators:
but what is evil? where does it come from?
was there a demon acting vicariously through hitler that was literally putting an invisible force called "evil" directly into his head?
was hitler motivated by what he believed to be a noble cause?
does his actions alone make the man himself a force of "evil"?
Negotiations:
i agree that abusing positions of power, especially in ways that result in mass deaths and terror is very unfavorable behavior to the extreme. but the "why" these people did these things is very relevant when questioning whether they, or their actions were "evil".
your treating evil as a thing, not a description. there actions were evil and those monsters were labeled as such.
[sta-cite]> but the "why" these people did these things is very relevant when questioning whether they, or their actions were "evil".
[end-cite]is it? if we're evaluating his actions on a moral level, his intention behind them is not strictly necessary for the evaluation. a drunk driver who kills another person still did something immoral regardless of *why* they did it.
so let me ask you, what is it about the "why" of an action that can absolve someone from the evil label? google defined evil for me as, "profoundly immoral and malevolent" and attempted genocide seems to fall under that category in my opinion.
[sta-cite]> if we're evaluating his actions on a moral level, his intention behind them is not strictly necessary for the evaluation. a drunk driver who kills another person still did something immoral regardless of why they did it.
[end-cite]a drunk driver is not evil on any level. i would assume in a majority of circumstances a drunk driver has no desire to kill anyone - so even one that would muse the legitimacy of the word evil would probably not label a drunk driver as such.
the "why" is *absolutely* necessary when evaluating one's actions on a moral level.
[sta-cite]> what is it about the "why" of an action that can absolve someone from the evil label?
[end-cite]well, of course i am defending the position that the "evil" label is illegitimate as a whole... but to humor your question with an example...
if a man slaughters a family... it is easy to call this person evil on the surface. if the man had a terrible car accident 5 years before... and it materializes in him becoming suddenly very mentally ill and violent... while it makes his actions no less right or easy to deal with... it may effect ones judgement on calling him "evil".
additionally, (though quite a bit bit more far-fetched)... lets say the family were the sole carriers of a terrible plague that could wrought havoc on the population. this man was the only person with this knowledge and had no proof because he had to completely destroy the bodies. it is easy to see this person as evil from the outside looking in.
my examples may be a bit lacking, but i hope you get the gist of what i am trying to convey.
[sta-cite]> google defined evil for me as, "profoundly immoral and malevolent" and attempted genocide seems to fall under that category in my opinion.
[end-cite]this is still the definition of a very abstract concept, and i am defending the position that the concept as a whole is inadequate in representing a person or their actions.
> a drunk driver is not evil on any level. i would assume in a majority of circumstances a drunk driver has no desire to kill anyone - so even one that would muse the legitimacy of the word evil would probably not label a drunk driver as such.
[sta-cite]>the "why" is absolutely necessary when evaluating one's actions on a moral level.
[end-cite]perhaps i was unclear, i wasn't saying the drunk driver's actions were evil. i was saying they were immoral. morality isn't just "evil" and "not evil." that drunk driver's actions are *morally wrong* regardless of the why, making the why not absolutely necessary when evaluating actions on a moral level.
[sta-cite]> if a man slaughters a family... it is easy to call this person evil on the surface. if the man had a terrible car accident 5 years before... and it materializes in him becoming suddenly very mentally ill and violent... while it makes his actions no less right or easy to deal with... it may effect ones judgement on calling him "evil".
[end-cite]i'm not saying that the why must always be discounted or that it never matters, rather i am positing that there are some actions so immoral that they can be considered evil without regarding the why. we might reevaluate in light of new information, sure, but i can't see any kind of justification for attempted genocide that would make me think i needed to not use the evil label.
[sta-cite]> this is still the definition of a very abstract concept, and i am defending the position that the concept as a whole is inadequate in representing a person or their actions.
[end-cite]morality itself is an abstract concept, and unless you're saying that we can't evaluate any actions on a moral level at all i don't see any issue with the word evil describing something "very immoral." it's always going to be somewhat subjective and arbitrary (unless you believe in absolute morality).
[sta-cite]>but the "why" these people did these things is very relevant when questioning whether they, or their actions were "evil".
[end-cite]i wholeheartedly disagree, and this goes back onto your desire to avoid a religious discussion. people do countless terrible things in the name of religion and believe that they're in the right.
if you want to talk about why the things they do are "evil", you can't view what they've done through the goggles of a religious set of beliefs and moral codes. you have to take a look at their actions from an **objective** point of view.
hitler was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. he perpetuated a mindset that bred prejudice and hate. if you look at this from an objective standpoint, just in the cost of human life, hitler is absolutely terrible.
what he did was wrong. what he did was detrimental to human life. he is evil by definition, and that's why we call him evil. we call him a bad man and a terrible person as well, but evil fits in with the book of adjectives we could use to negatively describe such a horrible person.
....
to readdress your statement of the "why" being important: if we look at the "why" of why everyone did something bad, nobody would be in the wrong. everybody has a reason for doing wrong. they might believe they're right in what they do. maybe they're just psychopaths, in which case the reason for their actions is rooted in a deep mental issue they could not control.
no person does things because they want to be "evil" or "bad" or "wrong". people do things for other reasons. being evil isn't the chief concern. evil is what people perceive you as because of your actions, not because of how you perceived them.
i think youre saying that seeking to understand why someone does something, and understanding why someone does something somehow absolves them from blame or punishment. this is however, not the case. people still have to answer for the consequences of their actions... but drawing a line in the sand and saying "this is evil" and "this is not evil" is making no progress towards understanding why people do such destructive things.. being as that evil, i retain as a literal concept does not exist.
evil is an abstract concept, not inexorably linked to the metaphysical or to something tangible. it's inherently a social construct, and is essentially equivalent to "an action or series of actions or policy that the vast majority of a population would find reprehensible or criminal". in that manner, it is subjective, but there are some things that almost all humans seem to find in common; murdering innocents is one, cannibalism is another. pedophilia is one that hasn't always been counted but is common in the 21st century.
just because it is a social construct, though, doesn't mean that it isn't real.
stealing a car is seen as reprehensible and criminal but pretty much everyone, but few would describe it as *evil*
so there's a magnitude point of the definition as typically used, but the point still stands.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
group home (4)
group homes
Indicators:
oh another thing - across the street and three doors down is a group home for people with developmental disabilities. they are delightful neighbors. you couldn't ask for better. but i assume that isn't the "group home" you were discussing.
Negotiations:
it could be.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
safe spaces (3)
Indicators:
safe spaces for who exactly? the only safe spaces i am aware of are those for women in certain regards.
are you asking about safe spaces in real life or on the internet exclusively?
Negotiations:
the concept of isolating yourself from differing opinions in general.
women and lgbt safe spaces tend to be the most common, as far as i've seen, but i dislike the idea in any form.
then, it seems to me, you've never needed one.
oh okay! i was a little confused for a moment.
so, if i understand you correctly you dislike safe spaces for women and lgbt because of the continuing support of the same ideas that won't in turn be challenged?
well, first of all that isn't what a safe space is actually for. when we discuss safe spaces for women and lgbt people we mean, "a place safe from society's condemnation, pressures, and judgement."
it is a place that is meant to be safe for those who often feel ostracized by the collective society they live in. a safe zone or safe place is meant to be a place to catch your breath, to recharge, to talk openly about issues that women and lgbt people will face without being judged. it is a place to laugh about fun moments, cheer when milestones are reached, cry when you need to, and to just feel like you are not afraid like those groups often feel in mainstream society.
i myself, as a woman and a bisexual, know these places are of extreme importance. when schools and workplaces do safe zone training for lgbt issues they are guaranteeing that students and employees will feel better about themselves. these places and the training involved save people's lives in some instances. rape crisis counseling offered in women safe spaces save lives. counseling against extreme homophobia and bullying faced by the lgbt community can save lives.
these spaces are not meant to be intellectual bubbles where ideas do not permeate. they are locations of safety, they are a home away from home, they are a place of no judgements or pressures. in essence, these places are necessary, which is sad because i would love if society as a whole was a safe zone, but that is not the reality we live in...
so, like i said, these safe zones are of extreme value and the utmost importance for those generally ostracized or afraid.
∆
you've changed my view! i think you're right. i can see the value of safe spaces now, as a place to speak freely rather than be silenced.
i still believe the idea is misused by certain groups to seal themselves off, however.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
stereotype
Indicators:
that isn't the definition given by, well, the dictionary...
Negotiations:
from google:
[sta-cite]>a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
[end-cite]the thing is that you're taking these more-true statements, saying "look! stereotypes are by and large true!" and using that as proof for the ones that aren't, and are harmful to boot. as someone else has pointed out: statistics bear out that women aren't worse drivers than men. they just aren't. but the stereotype persists. so it's **self-evident that your definition is wrong.**
as i responded to that person, totally ending a stereotype could take decades, or generations even. i think it's safe to say that stereotype will by and large be gone shortly.
my definition is wrong though, when considering stereotypes that have no origins in scientific data. i suppose that opens a whole new door to this conversation which i ignored.
∆
See entire sequence
Triggers:
regressive
Indicators:
this isn't regressive.
Negotiations:
a regressive property tax would mean only one thing - that the tax owed increases proportionately slower than the value of the property.
it might be some definition of "effectively regressive" if rental properties tend to be owned by poorer people. i doubt this is the case either.
>this isn't regressive. a regressive property tax would mean only one thing - that the tax owed increases proportionately slower than the value of the property.
it might be some definition of "effectively regressive" if rental properties tend to be owned by poorer people. i doubt this is the case either.
this gets to a question of tax incidence. i'm working under the assumption that the property tax is effectively incident on the renter, and that renters are on average lower income than owners.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
wants (2)
want (2)
Indicators:
goddamn mosquitoes lol
i do agree with your point as it applies to a threshold, but where i am not convinced is that a window screen, for example, is a "want." you or i wouldn't purchase, install, and enjoy a window screen because we want to exactly. it's a measure against a natural discomfort, and these aren't the wants i'm referring to here.
Negotiations:
[sta-cite]> it's a measure against a natural discomfort, and these aren't the wants i'm referring to here.
[end-cite]i might be reading this wrong, but didn't you specifically mention ac in your op as one of the wants we should try to move away from?
thanks for asking, i recognize that's confusing.
i did. what i meant by pointing out ac originally is that it's such a prevalent, and simultaneously energy-consumptive technology, that there would be an inherent monetary value to ditching it.
it is dissimilar to window screens because using ac consumes energy, and there's a monetary cost, month to month, depending on how much you use it. using ac less would result in lower bills, thereby reducing your monetary obligations and affording you more freedom.
your point that ac is also a measure against natural discomfort is totally true. i should have been more clear there. additionally, keeping mosquitoes out of your house could be considered more of health measure than running the ac, and much less expensive, and it's not exactly a luxury in the same way.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
feminism (6)
feminist movement
Indicators:
feminists might agree, in theory, that there are some areas where men are disadvantaged but they are not going to advocate for those issues to any noticeable extent because that isn't what the movement is about.
Negotiations:
you have to remember that feminism has a very large political/agend-ized component to it and the ultimate goal isn't to be as ideologically consistent as possible with regards to "equality", which is why you don't see feminists going to bat for "men's rights" issues. there is a reason why many feminists prefer to be called feminist than egalitarian; the focus is on women's issues.
hmm. i suppose i equated feminism with gender equality. i guess when i think of mra they only focus on the mens issues rather than women. ∆
however this seems to only apply to my draft argument. they simply haven't addressed the issue. however with domestic abuse and rape issues feminists have taken a stance and i dont think it can coexist with men and women being equal.
i don't disagree that mainstream positions on issues like that can definitely be a little inconsistent, but again you have to remember feminism is primarily about women's rights. your rape example, yes there is definitely a double standard. double standards aren't equality. an even better example for your first one - female on male domestic violence. there's a huge double-standard there but you don't see advocacy for that in the larger feminist community because it isn't a women's issue, which in large part supersedes the fact that there are some highly inequitable issues in our society. many/most feminists will pay lip service to those kinds of issues, but the proof is in the pudding - the fact that there isn't really any *action* on those issues shows you that it is really about (beneficial) equality *for women*, not just "equality" as an altruistic goal.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
indoctrination
indoctrinate
Indicators:
isn't that indoctrination?
Negotiations:
would you punish/scold your kids for lying? stealing? calling people names? cheating on a test?
shouldn't you allow them to do that until they are old enough to decide for themselves?
those are behavioral topics, and is completely un related to teaching of a ideology.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
indoctrination
indoctrinate
Indicators:
what separates indoctrination from regular teaching, to you?
Negotiations:
parents know they could be wrong, religion knows it is right. very different points of view
what separates it? pretty easy answer. evidence vs idea.
if it has evidence and is true, it's not indoctrination because it is true.
teaching something that isn't proven true is indoctrination
[sta-cite]> if it has evidence and is true, it's not indoctrination because it is true.
[end-cite]you can argue that for 'hard' science, but what about 'soft' science like sociology or history?
[sta-cite]> if it has evidence and is true, it's not indoctrination because it is true.
[end-cite]see, your idea is never going to work, because religious parents *do* believe it to be true (and as matter of life and death - often eternally so, and certainly sincerely!), and also feel justified in their *evidence* for it; be that faith, personal experience or what have you.
so what you're really saying is that it needs to be *objectively* true, able to be independently verified. who are you going to trust to fairly evaluate what is and what isn't objectively true, tell you what you can and cannot teach your own child?!
[sta-cite]> teaching something that isn't proven true is indoctrination
[end-cite]let's say i, as a secular parent, want to teach my child that we should treat all people the same, regardless of race, gender, what-have-you. why should i have to prove that this "should" is true to anyone?
if we are limited to only teaching things that are objectively, provably and *certainly* true i think the amount we could actually teach our children is massively reduced.
why should the state, or anyone else, get to make that call?
i am talking about factual truths, not things believed to be true.
[sta-cite]>let's say i, as a secular parent, want to teach my child that we should treat all people the same, regardless of race, gender, what-have-you. why should i have to prove that this "should" is true to anyone?
[end-cite]well, you don't have to because not everyone sees it that way. i think this is a trap, so i'm talking about morals, which is a different topic than religion. people have different morals with different beliefs and different ways of being grown up. there are others who believe that hating people from sexuality and religion is okay because their religious writings say so. so technically, it isn't a truth for all others.
[sta-cite]>i am talking about factual truths, not things believed to be true.
[end-cite]well this is ridiculous. not many things can be known 100%. if you know anything about the history of science, it has evolved a lot over time. things that used to be accepted as facts were disproven and improved with new theories and there is no reason to think that all current knowledge is 100% true. science is no perfect but i'm sure you know this. some believe that the bible(or any other holy book) is evidence of their religion. i don't see how everyone can agree on what is true or else we wouldn't ever really need to disagree on anything would we.
[sta-cite]> so technically, it isn't a truth for all others.
[end-cite]sure, i agree. but my point is that so much of what we teach children about the world, their place in it, the way they ought to interact with the world and those others in it is *very subjective*.
[sta-cite]> i am talking about factual truths, not things believed to be true.
[end-cite]again, if we can only teach *factual* truths that doesn't leave us with much to pass on to our children, does it?
[sta-cite]> well, you don't have to [prove that treating all people the same is something we should do] because not everyone sees it that way.
[end-cite]but hang on, if you allow for people to see moral truths differently and teach accordingly, why do you not allow people to see metaphysical "truths" differently, and teach accordingly?
[sta-cite]>again, if we can only teach factual truths that doesn't leave us with much to pass on to our children, does it
[end-cite]i see your point. but yet, i think that there is a lot that is passed down.
[sta-cite]>but hang on, if you allow for people to see moral truths differently and teach accordingly, why do you not allow people to see metaphysical "truths" differently, and teach accordingly?
[end-cite]morals can be seen differently because everyone is different. in my mind, it's completely different from religion.
[sta-cite]> morals can be seen differently because everyone is different
[end-cite]'faith in the supernatural can be seen differently, because not everyone's faith is identical'. neither seem like a sound argument to me?
[sta-cite]> in my mind, it's completely different from religion.
[end-cite]ok, so let's ignore talk something like the idea of a multiverse. i can't prove or demonstrate it to be true, don't even really understand it, but for whatever reason (let's say their dog died) i might want to teach it to my child as being true.
let's say i teach them that this is just one of an infinite number of universes, and that in universe x, fluffy lives on.
this is clear indoctrination of something unable to be proven, but why on earth should the state or anyone else be granted the power to tell me i can't teach this to my child?!
if your sole problem is with churches and *institutionalised* indoctrination i think you're missing the point. i was raised and indoctrinated in christianity from the moment i was born until i left home, despite our family being staunchly anti-church, and never attending any religious communities.
do i wish i hadn't been indoctrinated with the idea that the apocalypse was fast approaching and the world doomed? abso-fucking-lutely. but how can you *legally* prevent parents from passing on their superstitions, magical thinking and supernatural beliefs without auditing everything they hold to "be true" and censoring on a scale that would make the soviet union blush?
no thanks.
[sta-cite]> morals can be seen differently because everyone is different. in my mind, it's completely different from religion.
[end-cite]this in itself is a philosophical stance that you are seeking to have imposed upon society. not all people view morality separate of religion. seeking this policy effectively enforces a state ideology.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
wrote better
Indicators:
when you say you could of written better , what do you mean ?
Negotiations:
hand write betterso you could , the handwriting could of been neater , fine and then you want to pay some attention to your illustrations in the future , that 's good , come on then shout at me , it 's the only time you 're allowed .none of the crossing out , handwriting , org organizing my homework so it is handed in on time
See entire sequence
Triggers:
bulimia
Indicators:
what 's the difference between bulimia and compulsive eating ? is there a difference .
Negotiations:
well , in the definition that we heard , it tends to be associated with , with trying to rid your body of the food that you 've consumed during a binge . compulsive eating normally does n't go to that extent .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
level term
Indicators:
what does that mean ?
Negotiations:
she would get the same amount paid per week
See entire sequence
Triggers:
glass bowl fittings
Indicators:
when you say glass bowl , do you mean like the gold fish bowl ?
Negotiations:
like , yes , the gold fish bowl on chains , they 're hanging down on chains
See entire sequence
Triggers:
wall lights
Indicators:
when you say wall lights do you mean brackets wall brackets
Negotiations:
these , yeah , yeah , yeah
yes
See entire sequence
Triggers:
controlled access
Indicators:
what do you mean by controlled access ?
Negotiations:
well er if take it as if threw a b a fence all the way round the the flats . well that this starts off by keeping the outsiders out . they do most of the damage , knocking on doors , daub writing all over the place . so what i mean by controlled access is nobody comes on i within to this flat complex , without er the se the security team knowing . so say for example you was a tradesman . and you was say i 'm going to come to the exit point , i 'm going to say [unclear] come in here . and unless [unclear] has told us that you 're coming , then you do n't get on the flats . that 's one way to keep traders out . i mean how many times has somebody knocked on your door , oh i 'm joe bloggs i 've come to sell dusters ? you know , [unclear] . and people do n't want it . er it 's like kids or people walking through from [anonymization] road to [anonymization] road . they 'll ni they 'll nip through the flats . they 'll deposit their rubbish , you know . if they 've had a few beers , they m they may leave something else behind . people do n't want it . erm and that 's what i mean by access . controlled access . erm are n't complexes , in my view in my view only , in complexes of this size , it should be a controlled access . and er you just do n't get bad people wandering round the flats . the only people you get on the flats , is the people who live on the flats , and the people who 's been invited into the flats . erm and that 's that 's my view .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
decent music
Indicators:
what do you mean by decent music ?
Negotiations:
well , er you 'd get er light opera , and er er and er you know gilbert and sullivan and and and and andyeah .and this sort of thing . er which was er which was always er which was always enjoyable .mm .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
universe
Indicators:
what is the universe ?
Negotiations:
er the universe is er planets .
is it ? is that all it is ? no hand up . jennifer .
the universe is everything .
everything absolutely everything .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
adits (2)
Indicators:
what 's adits ?
Negotiations:
well they were tunnels too .it 's just a vent-hole really for [unclear]and they they [unclear] they chaps down [unclear] to the pumps . the [unclear] pumps was at the bottom of the adit . the pumping for the tunnel .
mm .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
transport
Indicators:
do you mean public transport ?
Negotiations:
well both sorts .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
un-slept (2)
Indicators:
so by unslept in you mean very tidy [unclear] .
Negotiations:
it was brushed down , it did n't look as though anyone had slept in it or was sleeping in it .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
gothic elements
Indicators:
do you mean that , when you say gothic elements , do you mean a heightening for mystery ?
Negotiations:
yes .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
cheque (2)
Indicators:
what cheque ?
Negotiations:
the presentation cheque .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
open land
Indicators:
would you please elaborate ?
Negotiations:
well it means exactly what it says .
you do n't wish to elaborate for us ?
you could have you could have open land within within a village , it does n't necessarily mean it 's open countryside .
are you referring , for instance , mrs [anonymization] , to the football ground , which i notice is in the village ?mm .
[unclear]
i was commenting in response to the objector 's proof in this particular case [unclear] .
i was just taking that as a working example of the concept which you 're putting forward , [unclear] .
yes , i mean i 'm saying that there 's obviously open land within built-up areas . that does n't necessarily follow that it is open countryside . for example the land at skelton hall could be regarded as open land but no one is suggesting that that should be part of the greenbelt .
but your council does admit that d thirty nine and d forty are open in character ?
in as much as there are no buildings on them , yes , [unclear] . [unclear]
they 're open in yes . they 're open in character because they are not part of the built-up area of skelton .
they 're open in character because they 're not built upon .
yes , exactly .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
misogyny
Indicators:
and what is the misogyny that they 're putting out that you talk about ?
Negotiations:
oh , it 's just , you know it 's incredible ! like advertising erm language , you know like erm , any courses that you study most of the text books will always be in in male identified language .yeah .erm you get comments on the street !mm .you know , in the pubs , oh ! it 's , it 's so tremendous ! like it 's just so huge , it it kind of feels quite overwhelming to even begin to combat it !mm .i think that it 's only a fear of women but it 's also a belief in the innate or or learn superiority of men over womenmhm .so that men from a very early age learn that women are , are not important creatures , that they 're not to be respected or erm understood certainly , and that they can be erm , beaten and abused and raped !i think er male society is built on women hatred ! erm , we hear a lot about the holocaust that happened to the jews in the second world war but not so many people know a lot about the holocaust that has happened to women over centuries and centuries where millions of women were burnt as witches , but er , just because they were women !sorry , i think this is a complete generalisationmhm .of men ! men , there are men who hate women , i agree with that but there are men who love and respect a a th what a woman is for how how good and and stre , the strength of women who can make you feel good and who who gives you the power of being able to be yourself and i i 'm sorry i i , that is part of it , i think there are two sides .mhm .i think a lot of men do hate women , i think a lot of men do n't . but i think the problem is that many men who hate women do n't realise that they hate women . they think , for example , the feller who sleeps with a lot of women , he says oh i love women ! i adore them ! and he does n't realise that he 's abusing and using themmm .because it 's accepted . it 's , you know , he 's a jack the lad or whatever ! and i think that 's a , you know and it 's the fact that society allows a lot of abuse to happen to women and therefore it 's not seen as hatred to women , it 's seen as perfectly acceptable .mhm . yes ?yes , i think really it 's a er , faulty gene in the system and no matter how men hate women , the majority of men really like women other than perhaps envy , or jealousy , or women earning more than their husbands and throwing it back in them , in their face , but the main subject , the main point to me is , there is a faulty ge gene in their system and there 's no way you will eradicate that !that 's a rather gloomy view ! but , is it is is is that true ?yes ?well what about the images that men see of women every day in pagemm .three ? i do n't think that 's respecting or liking women , that 's just making them as sex objects ! thatmm .i ca n't see that as being loving a woman .mhm .if men like women so much where are the men who are speaking about what other men are doing to women ? where are the men who are speaking out about the abuse of women in the home ? wheremhm .are the men speaking out about rape and sexual assault of women ? it 's women who are speaking about it , outmhm .about these issues , not men !well i think men really do believe that they are better than women . they do n't want to recognise that we 're equal . i mean , they 're the ones that point out , no , we ca n't do that , that 's women 's work !mm .you do n't hear women saying i ca n't do that cos that 's a man 's job !mhm . up there ?i think it 's actually still inbuilt in erm children 's minds , and i think it 's sometimes the mother 's own fault because they still bring them up , you know like , girls will do this and boys will do that , i think that is actually still still there , you know .so you do n't think it 's the faulty gene that marian talked about , you think it 's in the [unclear] ?yeah i agree , i actually agree with that as well because erm , i have a son and i think and he 's brought up by myself and there 's no man about , you know , so well i think it 's actually inbuilt in the man that heyou know , that he 's actually like that .beside you .i think one women that most men dislike is the mother-in-law ! the mother-in-law gets the brunt of everything ! prove mother-in-law 's wrong , no matter what she tries to do , she 's wrong ! allyes .men seem to say that !are you talking from experience ?welli should n't ask you that should i ? [unclear]erm , i i think it 's less a problem to be thought that men hate women so much it is alright to be rude about women .mm .i compiled an anthology a few years ago about , of misogynist quotes , and it 's everything from the bible , the koran , the hindu , to , every religion 's in there , all the judges are in there , pop singers are in there , i mean everybody under the sun ! and the things they say yo you read them and you think , oh yes , that 's pretty awful ! but like er , all women are evil and are the cause of all the evil in the world , says shirley bassey ! and you think well you know , that 's going to sell her lots of records and it 's jolly good ! but if you changed it and said all black people are evil and are the cause of all the evil the world ! it gets your flesh creepingmhm .in a way that it would n't if you said women ! and i think that 's where the danger comes as it 's a sort of acceptable thing to say !one , very easy way to find out how much men dislike women is not to behave they wa , the way they want you to behave !mm mm .so , i mean a a true real example is you get drunk men in a pubmhm .they came up to you if there 's two women together they assume that they have the right to talk to you , that you 're going to be interested in them , and if you tell them to get lost however politely , you can get a very , very unpleasant response because they assume that what they have to say is more important !mhm . up there .i think this is not , is more evident within marriage . erm , i think the idea is that a woman is a man 's possession , that she should be subservient , she should do as she 's told and that she has no intelligent to think intelligence to think for herself ! erm , one er main area i think , is in , when it comes to domestic violence . now , if you , if a woman gets hurt and she goes to the police for help they come to the house and they tell the people concerned it 's a domestic argument !what still ?so , it 's still a domestic argument , sort it out for yourself ! the wo , it seems to be the age old theory that women should do as they 're told ! if a , the violence is within marriage it should be sorted out within the marriage which i , you know , i do n't agree with .has that not changed at all over , over recent years ? i mean has er er are there not more enlightened attitudes ? yes ?i think th the the publicity that the police give out about themm .their attitudes would , would lead you believe that they have changed and they have become more receptive to the kind of things women have been saying over the years . but i think if you listen the stories of women themselves , er , who are abused in the home and who call the police , i think you would find that the same old attitudes are still erm been found .mhm .you do read terrible stories in the papers every day of men who 've murdered their wives , get off even though they 've chopped their wives into a hundred bits , driven to the lake district overnight , dumped the body and gone backmm mm .his school sports and said i did it for the sake of the children !and they get let off for that !mm .you know , they say oh she moved the mustard pot one morning and it really irritated me so much i killed her ! and the judges sympathize with it , that 's that 's amm .that 's a dangerousyes ?mm .there was one place quite recentlymhm .when erm the wo the woman had nagged her husband , the husband killed her and she got le , oh he did n't get let off but he , he got erm i think he walked from the court because the sheriff said the wife had nagged you for erm he , she did have to be killed ! i meanmm .this is what we 're coming up against !mhm .i think it 's really important to er , define this this brief that it 's women responsibility to change men , and to change their sums . because er , inevitably man has got ta leave their home , even if they 've had a father erm who 's been a [unclear] if they 've had no father at all , they 're gon na leave and they 're gon na face a world where they have to be a man and they 're gon na have to find their own male morals , and i think the , the responsibility , basically , has got ta come to men to change not for us to change them . yes , we have to fight for our equality , for our own rights but w we can change men and our , the responsibility is not for women to change men , it 's for women to change our own lives , our own situations , and for we , men to change their own .well there 's much talk at the moment about what 's called the backlash effect , that in fact , th the any advances that the feminist movement may have made on behalf of er of women is having precisely the , wrong effect and er and men are are reasserting their the their more old fashioned style . i do n't know if you would agree with that or what you think of that , and one might to combat that if you agree that is does exist ? yes ?well er , i do n't really think there 's been enough improvement to backlash against and erone of the things i would like say is , that although many things have changed a lot of things have stayed very much the samemm .and perhaps some of the have arguably grown worse . i 'm thinking really of the way misogyny has become a sort of public spectaclemm .and the subject of so much popular entertainment ! you know , er , twin peaks , the silence of the lambsmhm .erm , american psycho whatever ! i mean er , video games which turn on the chopping up of women , i think there 's real misogyny there and it 's saturates our public media , you know real erm undiluted women hatred ! and parents are really not alone in in bringing up their children , their children are exposed to all sorts of outside influences , through the media , in their peer groups , and those in many ways , i think , are getting worse rather than better .yes ?things like the diet industryyeah .the diet industry is teaching us to hate our bodiesmhm .so that we spend millions of pounds on , on diet aids that we do n't need at all !mhm .that 's , misogyny !yes ?i would , i worry terribly much about this discussion and it was suggesting that men are somehow the root of all evil and allmm .all the things that happen , all these sighs of oppression , because i think really what we 're talking about , whether it be within the family or it be within the media , all the signs of women as er sexistmhm .images or whatever , are n't so much to do with misogyny , some horrible male plot , some patriarch or conspiracy , it 's to do with the way our society is run and i think that 's , we look far more at class . i feel more allegiance , if you like , with er , a male working class person than i do perhaps with a female member of the [unclear] class , margaret thatcher would be a very good example of that . i feel far mo , less sympathy and far less identification with her than i perhaps do with a male worker who has to cope with the same kind of exploitation that i do , day in , day out . i think that really is perhaps where , where perhaps , examples of oppression come from , i , the structure of society rather than men being evil .what do you think of that view ? yes ?[unclear]well if , if you look at erm a female worker , er as opposed to a male worker and you look at the o oppression that she suffers , does she not suffer both the oppression of being working and the oppression of being a woman ? so , to me she was more oppressed than her male counterpar part .sure , she suffers both if you like , she suffers from oppression of beingyeah .a female in society and she suffers the exploitation of being a , be being a worker , of course that , but the a ruling class woman does n't suffer from exploitation .deborah ?well i 'm , i think er , although i have no personal time for mrs thatcher politically at all , i think she 's an absolutely classic victim of misogyny . that the way in which mrs thatcher was depicted , criticized you know , ditch the bitch ! all those kinds of slogans were a very good example of how er , women hating comes to the fore whenever women get in positions women are not supposed to be in . i agree with you that mrs thatcher is a representative of her class , first and foremost , but i think the way she was treated showed up a lot of rather unpleasant things about the er the political movements which opposed her .i wish somebody here would define exactly what misogyny is ! i thought it meant a man who hated a woman . it seems to me that the discussion right now is that we are all seeing all men hate all women !mm .and that is not true ! some men hate some women . yeah , i have worked all my life in various jobs and i 've never yet met a man who hated me nor have i hated any man , and i think there must be many women here who think the same thing . so , all men do not hate all women !would you recognise that we live a society where some men hate women and are able to use whatever power and influence they have to project an image of women which is which is hateful ?no ! i i , i think it dependsright .on your own attitude . i 'vedoesnever encountered it .right .i would agree with er , the lady behind strongly ! i mean i think that i would , really a lot of what we 're talking about here is actually male chauvinismmhm .and iyeah !deal a lot with menyeah .in in my course of work , i have three grown up sons and i think an awful lot of what we 're talking about is in your own attitude to men , and generally the most difficult men to deal with , i find , are men who for whatever reason , are actually inadequate , a little bit sensitive to women being competent i i have no difficulty at all in dealing with that , but i i 'm aware that it seems significant to me that a lot of the younger women here are much more shall we say , sensitive to erm , what i perceive as being basically male chauvinism . i 'm not excusing violence , domestic violence , imm .consider that to be exceptional , i 'm talking about the general .there . yes ?i think the evidence though is that men like okay , we 're talking generally , but if you look at the evidence of how many women are raped , one in four of girl children are molested before the age of sixteen , that to me suggests hatred ! i mean , the statistics for boy children being molested , there , there are boy children are molested but the statistics are nowhere near as large ! like , so many women are raped ! so many women are beaten ! so many women are molested when they 're really , really young ! and that to me looks like hatred , that looks like trying to destroy femininity , something that is beautiful .let's le let let me , let me take a couple of er votes . have you ever been raped ? button one for yes , button two for no . i 'm not going to pursue anybody on this one so i mean i 'm not yo you ca you can answer with er with impunity . now fourteen people in this hundred have said yes , which i think is is is shocking ! have you , have you ever been physically abused by a man ? button one for yes , button two for no . and that 's ha , even more shocking ! fifty three people have said yes , they 've been physically abused . and have you ever been emotionally abused by a man , is the final question i 'll ask at this stage ? button one for yes , and button two for no . and there we have e have phwurgh , seventy six people have said yes , they 've been emotionally abused by a man . now , maybe , maybe that is male chauvinism , that the status quo , that 's , that 's just how life is , is it ? i mean how , how would you respond to those particular votes ?well you know er , as i said , i think really an awful lot of it is in your own perception of , i mean what someone here might call emotional abuse , i would just regard as a challenge . i really do n't necessarily find every time a man and i 'm perfectly aware of the fact thatyes .a lot of men are not very good at taking a women 's opinion but i do n't necessarily regard that as a translation into some form of male misogyny .okay .some men hate men ! some men hate people full stop ! theyaha .hate children ! they dimi , they hate animals . [unclear] some women do and i 'm not quite clear that it has to be so definite as as erthere .some people feel .i think a lot of mis misogyny is behind the scenes in the allyeah .male world of the the guilds , the working men 's clubs , the freemasons , the rotarians , and even the pubs which have a predominately male culture and we do n't know what they 're saying about us behind our back and i think that is why there 's so much naivety about .just like to ask the hundred women here , we have the chippendales , and we have the men from texas now we always hear that they 're sell-outs , you knowmm .th , is the woman going there to abuse the men or to humiliate them why[unclear]is it such a sell-out then ?what , yes ?i think that , that there 's a o , clearly a very different history behind erm the use of women as sex objects and the use of men as sex objects , and a fundamental difference is that erm the , the background to erm using women as sexual objects in pornography or in prostitution is that is sexual violence , the wo the women can be raped or can be beaten i i in a sexual way and and that simply is not the case with men who are used as sexual objects . so i think it 's it 's erm , it 's a non-issue .mhm .yeah , i would just like to add something to that , and the fact that it 's not only that women , that , that men are taught that they can rape and they can abuse women , but er that it 's alright ! i can walk out or [unclear] , and get erm , you know tonnes of any any shop i can get pornography that tells me that , or tell any man who chooses to buy that magazine that 's it okay to take a women even if she says no . it 's okay to rape a women . it 's okay to rough , to be hard , to push , to rape ! you can get magazines who tellmm .you that that 's okay and that women even enjoy that ! if that 's misogyny i do n't what misogyny is !mhm .well years ago i i was at a party which was er , for a woman about to be married and there was a male stripper there . and , the women were it was very jokey , it was very jolly and lots of titters and things i 'm not making comment on whether i think it 's a good thingaha .or a badaha .thing . i have also been to a strip show which involved a woman , in a , in a club and it was a very different atmosphere . men were making all kinds of really negative remarksmm mm .about the woman , you know , oh she 's got a , she 's got a mole on her backside ! ooh i would n't have her ! or , i i ca n't re , i wo n't repeat here the things they said , but you know spread it , or get it out or whatever ! you know , really demeaning things ! very , very aggressive ! very hateful ! now , getting back to the comment the woman made earlier about men being misogynist within their own world i 'm quite convinced that a good deal of those men would go home to their wives and family and be very loving to their , to their wives and family , be respectful of their neighbours but as soon as they got in the all male environment , and this woman was there to be used , she was their property for the time that they paid their money to get through the door , they could be as misogynist , offensive and horrid as they wanted to be !mm . you see , i think , i mean thi thi it 's it 's been discussed seventy er seven of you said no , men do n't hate women and yet some of the discu , a lot of the discussion and certainly the votes you taken give a very gloomy picture ! and few people ar , a couple of suggestions have come up th th th , say that it , things will only change when men actually decide they 're going to change , when men feel that 's it 's intolerable to live a society where the kind of things which have been discussed , whether it 's the th th pornography or the the various abuses of women are seen as as just not being acceptable any more . do you think that 's ever going to happenoh sure !or do you thinkthe difficulty is that all the religions of the world have text books which are still studied , which all say that women are stupid , women are wicked , women are property , and women are revolting ! you know , you 're all taught that from childhood and always have been . i do n't quite know how you change it . things have gone er , better for women they have , in the restoration of a women publishers and there were n't any in last century , you know i er things go they seem to swing backwards and forwards all the time .but as a compilerand we stay in the same place !as a compiler of an anthology of er , of misogynist er , quotes , was it hard to find them ?no !
See entire sequence
Triggers:
direct action (2)
Indicators:
what is direct action ?
Negotiations:
was n't exactly legal !did it involve th , i mean a spray can or erit actually involved destroying erm , some of the product to just to indicate women were about it . and iti see .
was only after then , only after actually threatening property that the ad was dropped . before that , they would n't drop it .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
function (2)
Indicators:
what 's a function ?
Negotiations:
er a function is [unclear] is a set a set sum that you 're given . a function of a number .mm .er as a end result that number , that 's a function but you have to do something with it .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
insurance
Indicators:
assurance , do n't you mean ?
Negotiations:
assurance , yes
okay assurance
See entire sequence
Triggers:
pools
Indicators:
the pools ?
Negotiations:
yes the pools . that 's the salmon pools
mm .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
word processor
Indicators:
a word processor ?
Negotiations:
it 's basically a subset of word .
mm .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
mission
Indicators:
[unclear] mission ?
Negotiations:
[unclear] mission . it does n't make sense that does it . yeah it 's called to a miss er to mission . that 's the wor that 's wor that 's what the word is . the work we 're asked to do . right so the word is mission for there . right . [unclear] receive god 's call come on go through these first and then we 'll do them af i 'll let you do the word search .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
delegating
Indicators:
what 's the difference between delegating and abdicating ?
Negotiations:
delegate erm , you can delegate the job , but you ca n't delegate the responsibility .right , so when you delegate , what are you delegating ?specific tasks , the physical [unclear][unclear]but when you delegate that task is there anything that you retain ?the responsibility that it 's being done right .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
ballads
ballad
Indicators:
what do you mean by ballad kind of songs ?
Negotiations:
well more the slow , er songs , not the fast .
the love songs and things like that ?
things like that .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
young ones
Indicators:
do you mean by young ones my generation ?
Negotiations:
i mean , yes , well maybe you can but i do but the the younger ones are ever er you know younger ones like carl and them ,
See entire sequence
Triggers:
land reform
Indicators:
when you , you say land reform , do you mean land reform or do you mean socialism collectives
Negotiations:
i mean them both , they wanted they thought that the only way you could get effective sociali socialism was through industrialization
right .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
suspicious
Indicators:
you say people are suspicious of each other wh wh what do you mean by that ?
Negotiations:
well , i mean erm i du n no really , you sort of get the feeling that they 're suspicious , cos i mean there 's so many things go on here , that they 're not sure erm about you , i mean if somebody else does n't know you , then they 're not sure about you .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
condam
Indicators:
what is this condom ?
Negotiations:
the condam regulations actually say the client must ensure that he employs a safety conscious contractor .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
range
Indicators:
do you mean range in terms of numerical quantity or type or all sorts ?
Negotiations:
er oh [unclear] all . please .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
council
Indicators:
what council ?
Negotiations:
district council .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
unpreparedness
Indicators:
what exactly do you mean by unpreparedness ?
Negotiations:
well , the fact that in a general election situation , people will go out and vote . in local elections they wo n't . if , er if i was to further refine that i would argue quite strongly that a lot of people see it as their duty to vote in general elections mm ? erm they do n't take that attitude to local government elections . by the way it 's not just local government elections european elections as well . i mean turn out in the er in , in in er er european elections was er in nineteen eighty four it was thirty two percent and in nineteen er eighty nine , thirty seven percent . so less people vote in euro elections than vote in local elections . the question is of course why ? you get much higher turn out in local government elections in western europe , we western european states than you do in britain . why are people less prepared to vote in local government elections than they are in general elections ? let's throw it open .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
vulnerable (2)
Indicators:
you mean frightened ?
Negotiations:
yeah i think yeah .
yes yes .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
hard facts
Indicators:
hard , what 's a hard fact ?
Negotiations:
your name and your address .oh right
See entire sequence
Triggers:
physical energy
Indicators:
what sort of physical energy ?
Negotiations:
er erm the engine turning [unclear]right . is it moving ?yeah it 's , it 's circular er oh [unclear][unclear] d you do n't have to be that specific , you 'd , really you 'd want to know is it ermit 's physical .is it fixed , is it sitting there doing nothing or is it moving ? cos if it 'smoving .moving it 's kinetic .kinetic .okay .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
force
Indicators:
what do you mean by the force ?
Negotiations:
the massokay . right .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
cancel
Indicators:
i do n't know what you mean by cancelling down though .
Negotiations:
right if you 're cancelling down [unclear] . you were doing erm six thousand divided by three hundred , that tells you how many cages and there 's six swallows in every cage , times six . okay . now this was flies that the old ones ate flies the new ones ate . there 's going to be eating more flies , so you need more swallows , so that looks the right way up . and we were n't thinking about how many one ate , we were thinking about how many six ate . so it 'll take more of them . so we can cancel that . divide three by a hundred . sorry divide three hundred by a hundred .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
balance
Indicators:
balance in what way ?
Negotiations:
well [unclear] i mean , well that 's it , you know selection of everything like the starch foodsis that balance or varietyplenty of [unclear]variety .do n't know .okay . ohbut you need a balance as well , like protein and [unclear][unclear] if i put there balance . yes , you 're quite right !
See entire sequence
Triggers:
strong
Indicators:
when you say strong what do you mean ?
Negotiations:
making yourself understood clearly basically , knowing what you 're talking aboutknowing what you knowing what you 're talking about being clear okay [unclear] yepmore or less on the same lines having a point of view and putting it across without wavering , do n't ermcover your pointyes , [unclear] getting your poi yeahokayyeah , okayhaving a point of view and putting it across to other people i think we 'veand words are put clear and strong and i think i 'd use the word forcefulforceful , okay [unclear] but the other bit you 're happy with [unclear]oh yeahgreat
See entire sequence
Triggers:
assertive
Indicators:
what 's the difference between being assertive and not being assertive [unclear] what 's the big difference between the two ?
Negotiations:
a matter of confidencea matter of confidence okay [anonymization]no i was just about to say confidence [unclear] really i find it quite difficult to get assertive erm but when the situation does arise i suddenly get a gut feeling about it laterokaywhereas you look back at the end of the day and if you have n't done what you did you sort of feel like a bit down ah and you wish you had [unclear]being true to yourselfyeah go oni mean is this being true to yourself and letting yourself down and you know not saying what you feel you should 've said erm perhaps now [unclear] i wan na talk about one area in particular and that is this thing about you know submissiveness it seems that most people look at things that disturb you either as submissive or aggressive . a lot of people tend to look at assertion as being aggressive there 's a total difference . being aggressive is just as bad as being submissive it really is because people swing to one side you know it some people are very good at being aggressive and are very good at diving in and getting their own way and just ju by being aggressive it 's naturally aggressive .now the only problem with that is i sometimes look that these people i wonder are they really happy being aggressive all the time does that really make them feel happy ? i do n't think so , really it 's just the opposite problem of what we 've got over here , being submissive now we all know what being being sub submissive yes we let people walk all over us we do n't say [unclear] yeah we we listen to what everybody else says and therefore the opposite is you 're gon na get aggressive to get what we want . they 're both two sides of the same coin y'know , being aggressive is n't what it 's all about , being aggressive certainly is n't what it 's all about . what 's the point of being aggressive with somebody when they 're gon na walk away feeling as if they 've just been walked all over , so you 've still got the same situation you 've got one person walking away feeling a little bit fed up and the other person not so if you talk about assertiveness in terms of aggression and in terms of submission i.e. there 's going to be a winner and there 's going to be a loser depending which way round you look at it then you still have n't quite grasped what we mean by assertiveness . you do n't have to be aggressive to be assertive , look at some of these comments we 've got here how confident you are in yourself and how you put your point across . how you put your point across getting your point across and not being afraid of doing it , doing it effectively putting the point across , being positive in putting your point across so it 's all about putting your point across effectively , clearly congruously i.e. my body says what i mean . i do n't have to shout i do n't have to be aggressive or intimidate people i just have to tell people what i feel , think etc . does being assertive mean getting your own way ?not necessarilyit never does , it should never it should never be tied in with getting your own way . aggressive , aggression might be tied it with getting your own but being assertive is not about getting your own way . being aggressive is about exactly what you put up here this is me this is how i feel about what we 're talking about . this is what i think , not just hiding away and saying get on with it you know get on with whatever you want to do , no this is what i believe is what i believe that we 're doing . it does n't necessarily mean you 're gon na get it but it means that you 're being true to yourself because you 're putting your point across . and it 's how you put that point across , if you put it across and if the body language you use when you put it across and do you know what makes the biggest different the biggest difference about how you put it across the most important factor about how you put it across and what you 're trying to do ? any idea ? we talked about it being clear , being clear about what it is that you want . any situation with any person you need to be clear in your mind what you want before if there 's any dithering if there 's any way i 'm not sure that will stop ya it 's being sure being convinced of what you want is you know exactly what you want you know which direction you 're going in . if you do n't there 's plenty of people out there that do and they 'll walk right all over you to get what they want . so it 's not about being aggressive it 's not about being aggressive or submissive it 's about being clear to true to yourself being aware of what you want from any given situation . just because you 're assertive that does n't mean you 're gon na get everything that you want because you 're not being assertive just means that other people are aware of what you want . being submissive is the co point where what happens when you 're submissive you keep it inside you do n't feel you 're worthy enough or you have n't got you have n't got the self esteem to rate yourself as being able to have what it is that you want , so you keep it inside and you do n't say anything and then you walk away should 've said this and should 've said that and all it does is eat away at you and it does that to you physically as well i mean scientific tests are already showing now that physically these sort of things you do if often be submissive enough what that does it pretty much helps helps you to eat your body up from the inside and causes physical problems which pretty much do that anyway . because you keep it all inside it [unclear] against you , you begin to feel bad about yourself you begin to lose your self esteem erm you know and that 's the most dangerous thing about being bullied in terms of being at school or whether it 's even at work and being submissive is [unclear] withdraw internalise and to take it out on yourself . all this is you 're going to take out on somebody else you take it out on yourself . [unclear] the total is different opposite on the scale , instead of all this stuff inside of you , you just let it build up and you let it build up until whoosh and you throw it outside at other people , and that itself that that as well causes physical problems . apparently , i mean i 've read this , but i do n't know how there was actual references to it as well but apparently what they used to do run a test they used to do was they used to get people very very angry take some blood from them , put put them inside of rats and it would kill the rats . when you get angry you pump all sorts of different chemicals around your body and they do n't do your body any good that 's for sure , you know you get the adrenalin that starts making everything well making the blood move faster heart beat faster you get other chemicals ready and if those chemicals are n't used properly or if something does n't happen and it uses those particular chemicals and they 're left inside the body then that causes eventually physical illness in some sort of physical wearing of some sort or another , so gradually just the opposite of this where you 're you 're not internalising your throwing it out , but there 's a hell of a lot in there that 's been stored up there and bottled up there before it throws out , and when you do tend to be aggressive it 's not because you 're being aggressive on purpose it 's because it 's just something that just happens and wells up when you get to a particular point and whoosh out it comes . so you know there 's the , do n't link aggression with assertion , two difference . assertion you 're clear about what you want , you ca n't there 's no need to get get up about it there 's no need to worry about it this is what you want and this is the way it is , you do n't have to shout , you just have to stick to your point . [unclear] exercise that you do in terms of assertion in terms of helping build people 's assertion is what we call a broken record exercise , okay where one person wants something and the other person is trying to change their minds , okay , you get it in conversation when people do n't take you seriously and you 've asked for something and they do n't take you serious they try and avoid the point , they try and change the subject . assertion comes into being when you still bring the conversation back this is what i want nothing else will do , and bringing it right the way back all the time to discuss what it is [unclear] why it 's called a broken record exercise , we 'll give it a quick go now . what i want you to do is in your couples i want one of you to pretend that one of you 's got a grievance okay , think about it before you do it . one of you 's got grievance and you want something done , there is something that you want done and the other person , is the person you want to do it or the person who 's got a part to play . now this other person is trying to trying to change the conversation , trying to take you away from what you 're trying what you want done . what i want you to do as as the person who 's being assertive is to stick to the point . stick to the point , even if it means you 're acting like a bit of a broken record , get that person make sure they hear what you 're saying even if you have to repeat it over and over again . what i want you to practice doing is to try and get yourself saying over and over again regardless of how the other person tries to ask you questions to get you out of it , and then swap over . okay what i ask you to do as with being assertive , first of all be clear about what it is that you 're going to try and do , be clear about what it is and what the situation is , explain it to the partner and then try it and let's see how it [unclear] doing . okay , working with anybody , just just for just for a few minutes each it 's just because what i want you to experience is what it 's like to continually go over the same thing , i want you to experience that , to continually stick to your guns just experience that okay ? alright off you go .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
extrovert
Indicators:
the terms extrovert and introvert here i mean we 've had two comments on those are used slightly different .
Negotiations:
extrovert does n't necessarilydoes n't necessarily is n't necessarily you know the image the popular image of an extrovert which means you know somebody who 's always the loudest noise at the party and always that 's that 's really slightly not quite right picture of an extrovert . or likewise an introvert does n't necessarily mean it 's a person who does n't talk to anybody who keeps themselves to themselves and is a miserable , it 's not like that at all . what it basically means is that an extrovert tends to tends to have a wide area of interests but wo n't investigate them as much as perhaps that that deeply , and that includes friends as well , and that includes people around them and they look at the wideness rather than the depth . introverts are more the other way round whereas they 've got narrow interests , narrow fields of interest but they look at them in depth . likewise with friends they 've probably got fewer friends but the friends they have got are very close friends and they know them on a much deeper level . that 's really the interpretation of extrovert and introvert and the fact that it can apply to you know being loud and gregarious as an extrovert or being quiet and keeps to himself as an introvert that 's more of a popular view which is n't the sort of thing we 're trying to put across . it 's more of the way that you see things . wide and not so deep for an extrovert , very narrow very deep for an introvert that type of thing alright . so do n't put too much emphasis on that . so you 've probably got a wide amount of interestsyeah , yeahbut you do n't got you might not have one that you go into specifically in too much detailnot particularly , noalright[unclear]okay , like friends probably got a lot of friendsyeahand then maybe only one or two or three other interests [unclear] you got you go to into very deeply the rest are just sort of friendsyeah , that 's [unclear]okay , well that 's extrovert so we [unclear] in that particular instance . [unclear] alright did that make it make it a little bit better ?yeah [unclear]okay good [anonymization]
See entire sequence
Triggers:
punctuation
Indicators:
what does punctuation mean ?
Negotiations:
the real reason you put it in is to make it obvious what we mean . so people do n't get mixed up about what exactly we mean and to help when you 're reading it . so if you 're reading something out . this is about maths so we 'll have a look in that for punctuation . mm not many here not much so we 'll [unclear] questions . i mean most of these end in question mark . so the main thing about punctuation is first you know you know the main points . erm just going to start a sentence what would i do ?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
mephile groups
Indicators:
mephile , what 's mefile ?
Negotiations:
mefalle !
methile .
well one of them 's on the second one , and one 's on
[unclear]
the fifth one it 's [unclear] cos it 's ta , it 's [unclear] .
what you should be starting from is the longest chain .
yeah .
longest chain is the sixth chain so it 's gon na be based on a hexate .
yeah .
there are two methile groups one in position two , one in position five .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
functional group
Indicators:
what is fu fu functional group ?
Negotiations:
have a guess .well wha wha wha what do you think we mean by functional group isomerism ?erm it means they have the same functional group .er they do not , they in fact , have different functional groups .okay , [unclear] different functional groups .same molecular formulayeah .different functional groups . yes . so , for example this one here , very close to keith and trevor this one here , the best possible thing we can give to matthew . what do you think
See entire sequence
Triggers:
inentiamorse
Indicators:
what does it mean ?
Negotiations:
that 's the name for optical isomers . it 's the posh name for it 's the one that chemist use ! you know , optical isomers , alright ?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
means test
Indicators:
would the what exactly was the means test invo what did that involve ?
Negotiations:
no you , you , you were called to , to the labour exchange . er i think a court of referees i think they called it .
yeah .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
unknown disguises
Indicators:
how do you mean unknown disguises ?
Negotiations:
well marlowe does n't know who mister hardcastle is and does n't know who miss hardcastle is [unclear]
right .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
servants
Indicators:
you mean the serving men
Negotiations:
yeah . they were sort of were n't they .
no they 've sort of working on the farm
they 're just labourers .
yeah .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
recent
Indicators:
what do you mean by recent ?
Negotiations:
have you done it in the last sort of few weeks ?
oh yeah it 's the last few weeks .
good .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
occupy
Indicators:
you mean cope ?
Negotiations:
well , no not cope but to
to enable us to cope we have find space for ourselves , do something , purely for ourselves rather than always be thinking about our children , thinking about the home thinking about the family , we 're as important and i think that 's what people must realize to begin with .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
musicians
Indicators:
musicians ?
Negotiations:
aye people fiddlers or
oh yes there were quite a few .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
blank cell
Indicators:
that 's blank in what way is it blank ?
Negotiations:
[unclear] no formula [unclear]no , no formula and what else is not[unclear]not protected .no protect .no labels .no . no protect , is that what you mean ?whatever .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
anthropogenic
Indicators:
what does anthropogenic mean ?
Negotiations:
from human sources . for example can we continue burning fossil fuel and will half of it continue to be absorbed by the ocean or is the ocean reaching saturation such that these equilibrium terms are being reached and future increases in c o two will be reflected in atmospheric build up , and it 's only atmospheric c o two that contributes to the greenhouse effect . so the exact er nature of this balance and how waters between contact with the atmosphere are being mixed into the deep sea , cos remember this equilibrium can only be occurring in surface waters cos only they are in contact with the gas phase how that turnover of deep water 's occurring affects just how much capacity we 've got for absorbing c o two in the oceans and therefore mitigating the greenhouse effect .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
collector
Indicators:
i depends what you mean by collector
Negotiations:
one sufferer . one sufferer .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
cost of migration
Indicators:
what do you mean by that ?
Negotiations:
well , erm , there is a cost involved in moving from , physically moving from one to the other , and also when you have to weigh up er , costs of moving your family or the risks involved and things like that , so that 's all involved in that . erm , and for some people , well for the whole of the rural economy , it 's harder to , or they 're in a , a lesser income situation , and it 's also availability of credit , or access to funds is much , you know , people have less savings , and so forth , because they do n't save . they employ it , and put it back into the land , if they do make anything .
okay .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
abominably
Indicators:
when you say you were treated abominably what do you mean ?
Negotiations:
over a number of years i was subjected to domestic violence , erm , the last time i left i did n't report it right away , morally it was my son , i did n't want to drag him through the court , but when i did i was told no , your too late , you will just be seen as a woman scorned , your trying to get revenge , and that 's it , no , i 'm not taking a statement .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
share
Indicators:
what does share mean ?
Negotiations:
you share outyou share out , can you put that in a sentence ?i like to share out my sweetsoh that 's lovely , i like to share out my sweets
See entire sequence
Triggers:
prepare
Indicators:
what does that mean ?
Negotiations:
erm , you prepare something
can you put it in a sentence for me ?i prepare for my music exami prepare for my music exam , if you 're going to do prepare , what are you going to put on the end ?[unclear]yes i would care for when i had to do something , rather than just go straight into that , good
See entire sequence
Triggers:
set
Indicators:
what do you mean by set ?
Negotiations:
well they 'd get firm , you knowyes .so 's you could cut them next day . you could n't cut them that day cos they were hot , you see , the day you killed them the , cos father was a rare man he , when we got , [unclear] we got two fridges , we used to kill a week in hand , you see , one lot was in one fridge , that was in there a week before we touched it yeah .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
commons
Indicators:
what are what are the commons ?
Negotiations:
eastern common , [unclear] common
angle common .
angle common .
they 're greens with houses all round .
round the outside . they used to let the commons in the summertime . have common rights , they used to have horses on them like , like horses and stock , you know , cows and to graze belonging to different people . they had what they call common rights they are , yeah . they us and there 's one , two , three . there 's angle common and [unclear] common and eastern common . now they let them out in the summertime to different people . they used to pay , perhaps , thirty five a head or something like that for the summer , whole summer till november , then you 'd say they 'd [unclear] for home again , yeah .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
reserved occupation
Indicators:
what does reserved occupation mean ?
Negotiations:
er it means er you was er working er now you was a reserved occupation because i it was of great importance . that 's near as i can tell you about it now , it has a special name i know , but er , that 's it . y your er you was er er now . that 's it , yo you was er reserved because you was more important to be on your job than er go to the war .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
fire losses
Indicators:
fire losses ?
Negotiations:
you know as the result of a fire the , the amount of money and goods that er are destroyed in the fire erm chemicals erm have come on the scene which bring with it their own particular dangers and risks from fire and from erm from the toxic effects of chemicals and the endanger to the environment .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
tactical advisor
Indicators:
what does tactical advisor mean ?
Negotiations:
it meant because of my experience and my knowledge i was erm able to advise the superintendent in charge , mr [anonymization] , on the various options that were available to him and also erm advise him whether he was considering other options , whether they would be safe or otherwise .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
secure
Indicators:
by secure what do you mean ?
Negotiations:
i mean that er all possibly threats had been secured by use of handcuffs and that there was no likelihood of anybody hiding er in the premises or certainly nobody in the premises with a firearm .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
main group (2)
Indicators:
what do you mean the main group ?
Negotiations:
sorry there 's a subgroup of the the national management initiative .right .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
beareth
Indicators:
what does beareth mean ?
who knows that to bear means ?
Negotiations:
shows .mm .shows .no , that 's that 's bare as in b a r e i suppose . [unclear] exhibitionism .[unclear]oh , it has .no , it has n't .holds [unclear]mm , yeah al almost holds so it 's obviously a word which has now become erm , obsolete for you people . to bear something , means to to carry it .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
savour
Indicators:
what 's savour refer to ?
if something 's savoury , what sense are you , are you using it .
Negotiations:
to
[unclear] taste .
taste , yeah . savour literally means taste .
biscuits are savoury .
so are crisps .
indeed , yes . so it literally means taste in this case .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
mentally tortured
Indicators:
what do you mean by mentally tortured ?
Negotiations:
well they can physically do it to you with use of fists , use of hands and whatever else they 've got and they can mentally do it to you like put you in jail that [unclear] or all sorts of things like when i was on sick leave , they came and lifted me .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
stuff
Indicators:
what sort of stuff ?
Negotiations:
well i mean there was an incidence where erm maybe a guy who did n't clean himself very often they would er a whole group of guys would find it funny to take him into the toilet erm fill a bath up with half with water , put bleach in it erm excrete in it , urinate in it and put him in hit , hit him with ba erm brushes , all kinds of stuff like that .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
pressures
Indicators:
what kind of pressures ?
Negotiations:
i 'm not well social pressures , emotional pressures .
mhm .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
disruptive selection
Indicators:
sorry remind us what you mean by disruptive selection again .
Negotiations:
where , well where er disruptive selection i i i is [unclear] very huge differences between men , male and female and this was then accentuated over a period of time [unclear]oh i see what you mean yes , fine , okay .okay , so are , so , so it 's just tha tha tha that along with this [unclear] a psychological context , so you got a biological and psychological going hand-in-hand [unclear] simultaneously .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
hobblers
Indicators:
hobblers ?
Negotiations:
aye you know , holding them on the plank and th passing them to the but the the men that were stowing them , they were regular men on the they knew how to do it see . and they used to pack them up so nice and tight [unclear] till they were full up inside [unclear] . and then they did n't shift at all see . no .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
board
Indicators:
which board ?
Negotiations:
er , first of all i would put it to my divisional board to my colleagues to ask for their thoughts and their advice erm , if they rejected it then it would n't go any further , if they approved it then it , because it was a budgetary item rather than just we can go out and spend it tomorrow , it was going into the following years budget , it would then go to the p l c board and they would have final say in whether that element should go into the , into next years budget
See entire sequence
Triggers:
volts
Indicators:
okay what are what are volts ?
Negotiations:
volts erm it 's a term used for electricity ,
okay .
volts .
right , what sort of electricity ?
currents . the current of the electricity .
good . does n't have to be current but it usually is . best thing to do is to draw a little picture erm so what does volts measure ?
the amount of electricity that 's going
yeah . it measure the the potential ,
See entire sequence
Triggers:
electricity
Indicators:
what sort of electricity ?
Negotiations:
currents . the current of the electricity .
good . does n't have to be current but it usually is . best thing to do is to draw a little picture erm so what does volts measure ?
the amount of electricity that 's going
yeah .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
flex
Indicators:
the flex ? what 's the flex ?
Negotiations:
the flexible connection .the cable .ermthe wire that goes to it .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
bucket load
Indicators:
what 's a bucket load ?
Negotiations:
it 's about as much as you can carry
See entire sequence
Triggers:
workbooks (2)
Indicators:
what do you mean workbooks ?
Negotiations:
i mean workbooks .[unclear]oh .yes , these things .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
m t b
Indicators:
what 's the m t b ?
Negotiations:
microbacterium tuberculosis .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
concrete
Indicators:
what is concrete ?
Negotiations:
oh , it 's erm stone .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
chemist (2)
Indicators:
herbalists you mean ?
Negotiations:
that 's it .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
counters
yeah .
Indicators:
counters ?
Negotiations:
a big jar with pennies in or anything like that ?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
joint account
Indicators:
when you say joint account , do you mean building society ?
Negotiations:
yes . er , a building society or bank account , yes . joint account .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
work out
Indicators:
how you mean how did it work out ?
Negotiations:
well did it how many how many performances did you do ?
she did thirty two .did she ?yeah .never put a foot wrong ?no she was very good .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
unions
Indicators:
when you say a union , what do you mean a union in a true sense of the word , or do you mean an organisation , which is something va vastly different
Negotiations:
sorry , the only one i eh , i eh got this idea was when i first took this up i went into the hut in the town , and i picked up the booklets , you know that they have on the counter , and in one of these booklets it had that the vet 's were [unclear] now i do n't know what [unclear] i 'm , i 'm very lost for everything like this , but they 've kept [unclear] and therefore if your animal needed , your pet needed treatment it would be done by the private vet 's and eh , mon the money would be re would be reclaimed by the [unclear] vet from the r s p c a , and i think that [unclear] gave to erm [unclear] .well , what i think i shall do now is i think i should take this a little further about this union business , i think i should get in touch with dave [anonymization] , the editor of the t u c to find out what the exact position of these , this so called union is because it does n't sound like a union to me , it sounds , it sounds like an .[unclear] . [unclear] .it sounds like an association . [unclear] .he would be able to find , they would be able to find out what they are . [unclear] .i 'm talking about the unions .i mean the resources then .yeah , the resource teller .[unclear] .yeah , he would be able to find out what type of union this is , or whether it 's some establishment association , we try quite frankly , i , i , i think it is . from the way this lady spoke it seems to me like , like a that , that sort of er organisation , from the establishment .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
jail
Indicators:
when you mean jail do you mean the police station or prison ?
Negotiations:
prison .
prison .
prison , right .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
homicide
Indicators:
what 's a homicide ? what is it ?
Negotiations:
i knew you 'd ask me that .
okay then , shh shh shh . hold on a second , she 's used the word homicide
i know what that is .
shh shh shh shh it 's th that is the correct word for what word ?
burglary .
shh shh shh
[unclear]
no . homicide .
[unclear]
homicide is the proper word for the word i want one of you to come up with .
[unclear]
shh shh shh . it starts with m.
murder .
murder . the proper word is homicide .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
veronica
Indicators:
a veronica ?
Negotiations:
yeah , it 's a flower .
oh i thought you said a running car then .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
quangos
Indicators:
what 's erm , what 's a quango ?
Negotiations:
quango , government appointed body essentially . check i 'm right , i think i can spell it , it 's a q is n't it quango ? yesit 's not so accurate .no i do n't really think so , it 's a name given to a body , so semi public body appointed by , by government .like the n r a ?sorry ?like the n r a.er are they privatized ? they [unclear] regulatory .yeah that 's a [unclear] .o p q.how do you spell that ?i am just about to tell you q a p u quan quango , it 's a q u a n g o semi public body with financial support from and senior appointments made by government . yes that 's a semi [unclear] semi copy body appointed by the government or possibly with financial support from the government .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
dress
Indicators:
when you say dress your horse over you mean groom him ?
Negotiations:
groom them . that 's right . groom them . you groom them . see , we call it dressing them over you see .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
talking yellow pages
Indicators:
talking yellow pages ?
Negotiations:
yeah , it 's erm it 's not one nine two , it 's it 's something different . erm you can phone them up and ask them for a yellow pages listing and they and they 'll give at random a listing from the yellow pages in whatever area you ask for . you ca n't ask for a specific taxi company orah right , okay
See entire sequence
Triggers:
first thing
Indicators:
what 's first thing ?
Negotiations:
you know , before nine o'clock .
that kind of first thing .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
conveyancing expert
Indicators:
what is a conveyancing expert ?
Negotiations:
solicitor who conducts conveyancing .my lord the the report deals with the extent of the duties which are [unclear] by solicitors engaged in commercial conveyancing , [unclear] er the duties that is [unclear] practice and is adopted by a majority of solicitors in this field , which relates to the extent of the duty to [unclear] to financial security and to advise as to er the availability if asked , of the way out of the contract and the meaning of and interpretation of the national agreement of sale . now my lord the report er in my submission goes to the issues which are at the heart of this [unclear] . the rule i in my submission is that expert evidence is admissible er where there are matters at issue before the court which require expertise for the analysis and these criteria to be satisfied in my submission are that first of all the evidence must be relevant , and secondly the witness must be competent to give it .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
aphrodisiac
Indicators:
does everybody know what an aphrodisiac is ?
Negotiations:
is it er [unclear] something to make you go h high ?
y yes sort of .
sor s sort of something like a it makes you go it makes you go l loose and nice and feeling good inside .
that 's it . sort a er you know you you 're you 're happy but you 're full of go at the same time .
yeah .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
targets (2)
Indicators:
do you mean targets , or do you mean standards , when you say targets ?
Negotiations:
well , i suppose it 's standards . he 's got to know the company targets
right
See entire sequence
Triggers:
lower basement
Indicators:
lower basement ?
Negotiations:
yes , the basement is for those who fail , the lower basement is for those failures who blame their failure on their supporters .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
district manager
Indicators:
what 's that involve ?
Negotiations:
well i 'm a sort of ideas woman , and er , advisor , primarily to a series of canteens . my job is to use my knowledge and experience of catering to make sure that the meals are exciting , varied enough , and above all they 're nutritionally balanced , high protein , low carbohydrate , plenty of fibre , and the key vitamins and minerals . it 's quite a challenge really .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
standards
Indicators:
so what is a standard then ?
Negotiations:
a standard is quite simply a measurement , imposed by you on your staff , that tells them exactly what 's expected of them . it enables your staff to know themselves how well they 're doing their job , and if they 're keeping up to the mark . it helps them .i 've heard the theory but you ca n't actually set measurable standards in all the jobs can you ?if you think about it , you 'll find you can . well , we may not have enough time for that , so erm , let's imagine that you 're a sales director , and , now this is more difficult . let's imagine that you 're an effective one . now these are the minimum standards we expect from our salesmen . no fewer than ten cold calls each month , all cold call reports must be filed within seven working days of a visit , and a minimum of eighty calls to be made per month to existing customers . mm ?oh i see , i am laying down precise quotas so my staff can see at once if things are n't up to scratch .right
See entire sequence
Triggers:
hot chocolate
Indicators:
what 's hot chocolate ?
Negotiations:
well somebody sa and they stand facing the wall and they shut their eyes and there 're people at the end and they have to try and get to the other side without the other person seeing them . and them erm when everybody 's been caught by the person who 's at the person sat saying things like hot bananas hot milk and then when they say hot chocolate the you 've got to run back . and they 've got to try and catch nobody . and if nobody 's caught the person who was it [unclear] is it again .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
support
Indicators:
support it ?
Negotiations:
well string timbers up and you build it up , and the whole lot comes down .
yeah ,
See entire sequence
Triggers:
chilling
Indicators:
chilling ?
Negotiations:
we did , chilling , yeah getting cold , last year we did , in your first aid course you did hypothermia did n't you ?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
gait
Indicators:
gait ?
Negotiations:
if you , if you are standing like this and you pick up one foot you will slightly raise your pelvis on the opposite side wo n't you ?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
black shades
Indicators:
when do you mean black shades , like mirror shades yeah ?
Negotiations:
yeah .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
swan lift cranes
Indicators:
what do you mean by swan lift cranes ?
Negotiations:
well the cr the jib went up and then it came down like that , well that swan neck on the cr that used to be what they call level oven , cos as y as you lift your crane out , so this part would come up .
the end ?
the end would come up and , and keep your load level on the ground you see , otherwise if you were a straight jib , they 'd come down and further you come down the further , the lower your load get .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
tramps
Indicators:
tramps ?
Negotiations:
tramps , yeah , yeah old carwhy did you call them the tramp ship ?well they was an old cargo boat , that were n't like a naval boat , they do n't call it now , they do n't call a naval boat a tramp , well the other ones cos they 're faster and th th the old tramp , tramps it was like an old tramp on the road and erm because we used to go very slow , well th the japanese after the war , they bought these old ships up , we loaded them with scrap iron and they took the whole lot over to japan , and cut the whole ship up [unclear] scrap iron . do you know we had bales of , bales of til tins all pressed together as big as that machine , yeah and they 'd dump into the ship and they used to have magnets , put 'em into a net and these er bales of tins , any old tins , they used to find , used to go in there , we used to tip 'em , we used to tip them into the hold [unclear] they cut the ship right up and that that 's what we 're getting back in motor cars now .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
head bags
Indicators:
what 's a head bag ?
Negotiations:
see but we had a head bag where they used to fold a sack in half or put one part through the other and put over the head . a lot o lot of these here dockers used to erm have 'em made out of calico .
and why did they do that ?
and tha when they were carrying er sacks of er fertiliser , corn , anything like that .
for a bit of padding or protection ?
no it used to be just the sacks stop the dust and go down the back and i 've known the time what er , when they needed a regular gang of dockers , if they went to work on er , on er monday morning with a dirty head bag on made of calico , they 'd have to buy the beer cos they had , if they ai n't got a clean head bag on or a cl clean skullcap , there used to be a little old calico skullcap they used to put on just to keep the dust out the hair and all like that .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
dolphins
Indicators:
when you say dolphins , what do you mean by that ?
Negotiations:
well they like little , they were like little concrete stages , they was two and the they were in the river off , off this side , they were this side of the hall bridge .and what did they do ?but they , they wanted to protect this here erm , the pipeline what went into the channel .oh to stop the ships fromthat 's right yes .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
strong back
Indicators:
a strong back ?
Negotiations:
a , a , a strong back which was er er say a , a what we call a back in the centre of the ship and course the d n th the steam hopper could heave their own doors up by the steam winch . they could put the hook in there and they could lower doors away so there 's no need for the , cos many a time in the dumb hopper when you knock that pin out , they go down with the force and it 'd break and it 'd break the er the chain , the chain link . then we had to then fiddle about and get the chain up with a big pole and heave that up and we always knew that if a dumb hopper come back and they 'd what we used to call they 'd lost a door , one of the doors used to break , used to be about i would say erm eight doors in the hold , separate doors and if one of them broke they 'd fiddle about with a big , what we would call a pole with a hook on trying to get hold of the chain and we 'd see that there pole sticking up out of the hold , we knew they lost a door so what they used to do they used to leave [unclear] with the dredger and we 'd finish that off before we load it , had to .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
stand-by money
Indicators:
stand-by ?
Negotiations:
what they call stand-by mo they do today , they still guarantee a day 's , it ai n't much mind you but they still get guaranteed so much a day .on flat rate ?flat rate .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
candy peel
Indicators:
candy peel ?
Negotiations:
candy peel what you eat . cakes , you we that 's lemon peel and that 's how all these oranges were cut in halves , scooped out the orange and then all put in , one bit in the other .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
direct
Indicators:
direct ?
Negotiations:
direct , the same as erm fertiliser coming in , a lot of lorries would come down there and get the fertiliser , different say merchants , different farmers , they used to go through the agent and they 'd buy so much off the agent , this different fertiliser if [anonymization] could n't supply it , what they wanted .so the men had to be there at the right time you had t [unclear] ?oh well , you you 'd be waiting .so it all had to be organized really did n't it ?oh it did , yes .to make it work .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
consignment
Indicators:
what is the erm definition of a consignment ?
Negotiations:
ah ah sorry , it 's
so , what i 'm saying is
it 's solely for , it 's erm i , yo you could have six or seven parcels all picked up in one consignment if it 's picked up by that carrier
by one carrier .
going to one address at one time .
so that 's one consignment . now if say , let's
so it 's one consignment .
keep it
so
to a dozen .
okay , so you got one consignment
you 've got a dozen items i want a dozen items
yeah . which is made up of one consignment .
one consignment . you 're only covered per consignment , so the whole twelve together are only insured for fifteen
ah ah , ah !
thousand .
aha .
what he must do
is make sure that each individual box
becomes a consignment .
ah ah .
he 's got to label up and pay for at a consignment rate each item . he
cos
ca n't
i understand .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
long division
Indicators:
what do you mean long ?
Negotiations:
just normal multiplying , the way you multiply that out by hand .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
rape
date rape
Indicators:
i 'm not sure if there is a difference .
Negotiations:
i 'm sure there 's a difference . i 'm sure there are there you know there 's there is ordinary nasty horrid aggressive rape when you 're you 're you know like somebody 's attacked from behind or something down a a dark alley . and then there is a different thing called date rape but there is no excuse for either i do n't think .well i 'm not sure about that either . i mean certainly there 's the horrid sort of thing that happens on date rapemm .and you know with violence and that and then as you work your way along there 'd be the sort of situation where there is n't any physical violence but there 's intimidation and fearyep .fear of violence and i think that 's that 's definitely out of order . and then you get you work your way along and you get to the situation where erm the woman is pressured by feelings of embarrassment or social pressure not to say no . and that 's when i think it starts to get into into shady ground where where the woman has n't actually said no because she feels intimidated not by violence but by social pressure . that 's i mean that 's maybe more the fault of society than it is the fault of the of the man that 's involved . and then you get into the situations apparently where erm people decide after they 've had sexmm .that they did n't enjoy it and therefore it must have been rape cos they did n't wa they did n't like it . erm and then i think you 've you 've clearly gone outside the definition of rape or outside you know a reasonableyeah i would agree with that but i do n't think there is er any excuse for a woman to or a man for that matter to say women deserve rape says m p's wife .oh no i mean he 's g he 's got ta go has n't he ?i mean if if a woman undresses okay let's take a scenario okay simon maybe er you know you could put yourself in the same situationall right .been out with a woman 's erm undressed in front of you you know you 've done the bit you 've er you 've managed to er within three easy steps undo the bra with one hand whilst er telling her you know you 're a really nice guy and there 's no chance of going too far and all that sort of thing and you know you get you get fairly carried away you may even be under the sheetsyeah .you may even and this is a bit i mean saturday lunchtime is a bit i 'm almost almost er oh the producer 's going , careful careful , which he should know is a red flag to a bull and i might say [unclear] no but i wo n't . er so maybe you 're both even under the covers naked all rightmm mm .okay and then there 're there 're bits of your body that are are are you know your your your whole being is stirringcould be a bit hard to stop .it could be very hard to stop .mm .so er as soon as the girl turns to you and says , right i do n't want to go any further that 's it .well it 's it 's annoying at that point .it 's very annoying but that 's when you have to stop .[unclear] but you do have to stop but that is n't to say it is n't very annoying .okay . but if you were to carry on and the woman was screaming no no no no get off get off get off , as far as i 'm concerned that 's rape .that is yeah . but i think there 's some there 's some grey areas in there .[unclear] there are but i mean it 's it 's silly for people to say once a man is sexually aroused it 's quite difficult to stop is n't it ? well it is difficult to stop .i 'm i 'm surprised they have n't got rid of cynics [unclear] already actuallymm .ermwell he 's not in he 's out today he 's out he and his wife are out cos we put a phone call in we said let's have a chat with himwe were just going to ask him about this proposed pay rise that 's all .this thing that that er his wife said about some women deserve itmm .funnily enough though there are there are feminist women who are who are saying similar things that saying that it is a bit irresponsible to have gotten into bed with someone and taken all your clothes off and then say no .yeah butbut as you say you at that point you do have to stop .how many though how many men have and you remember , i can just remember ,i mean just you know the the sort of , well look er you know it does n't mean i wo n't respect you and i do n't love you and all that sort of thing .er i 'm not sure i share your experience thereyou see and er i mean er are you sure you do n't want and er . we can be persuasivemm .but there has to be a time when no is no .just have to avoid being intimidated .yes you 're right .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
smoke alarm
Indicators:
what are you t when you 're talking about smoke alarm , what do you mean exactly ?
Negotiations:
welldo you mean a bell on the outside of the house ?no . [unclear]i 'm talking about inside bells now . it 's inside .[unclear]i mean they open the door and bell can go inside ca n't it ? just [unclear] alarm .yeah . right , so if we 're talking about burglar alarms with the bell box on the outside of[unclear]the house . erm that would put most of you off . butif the wiring 's running outside the [unclear] outside the [unclear] person [unclear]well could it er british standards say that wiring should n't be external so we 're okay there .right , [unclear] british standard , yeah .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
feeling
Indicators:
feeling ?
Negotiations:
yeah feeling . now those terms are a bit peculiar . you always get trouble with them in psychological tests , cos you either [unclear] use terms which nobody knows what they mean , or you use terms which people have meanings for and that 's not what you actually mean by them . and feeling does n't refer to emotion as such . this dimension is about erm how you prefer to make decisions . you 've perceived something you 've now got to decide what you 're going to do or whether you 're going to do anything . and the difference between the two is in terms of the material you prefer to work with . and the er it 's all rational , so it 's what sort of material do you prefer to exercise your rationality on . and the thinking people prefer to use impersonal objective material .mm .whereas the feeling people prefer subjective personalmm .material . so you 've go got a situation where if somebody wants to change something they 're actually , you know maybe it 's something you do in a job or something like this , and somebody says we , we really ought to change this . or it might be something sort of domestic like maybe you go shopping every same day every week or something . erm and somebody says well you , you know , you should change that . erm then the thinking person 's sort of preferred response is to erm seek a tight definition of what the change actually is . erm so they 'd wan na know well you know if it 's a shopping change then erm , do you want me to change the day ? do you want me to change what i buy , do you want me to change the time i do it ? do you want me to change the place i go to ? what exactly is it thatmm .you 're , you 're , you 're saying that i 've got to do ? erm and how 'll that effect what went on before . it may be there 's some sort of sequence to these , this activity . erm and how does it effect what comes after ? so it 's a very logical impersonal sort of approach .mm .okay ? now the feeling person on the other hand faced with this sort of suggestion would immediately start saying , well erm why are we going to do this ? er who for whom is it a benefit ? or who sees meaning in this change ? for whom is it of value ? is it going to benefit the shop keeper ? me the , the customer ? or you , some of the other people maybe on whose behalf i buy things ?mm .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
bell
Indicators:
so what do you mean by a bell , [unclear] trying to visualize what you mean
Negotiations:
yes . well like [unclear] i mean we all know what a bell is , a bell which is set off by by a human body coming in .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
n r e
Indicators:
what 's an n r e ?
Negotiations:
net relevant earnings .
net relevant earnings , indeed .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
divorce cakes
Indicators:
what 's a divorce cake look like ?
Negotiations:
we had a bo , a broken hearta broken heart , aha .with sort of a trail of red blood coming out the middle !oh !
See entire sequence
Triggers:
noise
Indicators:
but noise in what sense ? [unclear] what kind of noise are they talking about ? are they talking about
Negotiations:
well , it would depend but i mean there are various of nuisance from noise in the flats , or anywhere where you 've got a lot of people put together all living in a s fairly small area . but erm but they do n't , they do n't really complain about the complex as a whole . they 'll complain about their own i individual bit of it .does the er yeah .if they complain at all .mhm .and i think it 's the tenants ' group which got together the , the , the sum of all those complaints , m erm which er and , and put them together to , to find what those common complaints were . which was then highlighted in the c in the structural report which went before the council which was the basis of their decision to rehouse all the tenants .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
exam fee
Indicators:
what do you mean by the exam fee ?
Negotiations:
the forty pound fee to sit the exam
See entire sequence
Triggers:
meeting
Indicators:
do you mean inaugural meetings
Negotiations:
well an any meetings really because i think if i can er show my face at these meetings it might er i mean i think whether or not it 's because of the increase in burglaries or whether it 's because of the publicity via david we seem to have had er a hell of a lot of er enquiries about the schemes .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
go harvesting
Indicators:
go harvesting ?
Negotiations:
yeah catching rabbits [unclear] a hedge and cut down a stick you know [unclear] at the corn on the old [unclear] and if we were lucky we used to get erm we used to er seat the old fella on the boiler and have a ride round on one of the horses .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
ladder
Indicators:
what do you mean by the ladder ?
Negotiations:
the ladder is where the buckets er er run on you see [unclear] that 's the ladder like that from what they call the top tumbler what used to be the top tumbler used to have five sides
See entire sequence
Triggers:
tumbler
Indicators:
what do you mean by tumbler ?
Negotiations:
well a tumbler is where they , the buckets used to go over the top and empty into a chute into the hopper and er went cos it was on a continual chain you see cos you had a bucket two links , a bucket two links , a bucket two links , all the way round and that 's how you used to dredge all the time round and round and round and that 's how it went over to the top tumbler cos you had a bottom tumbler on this layer and a top tumbler , otherwise [unclear] you could n't dredge otherwise and that top tumbler , i am certain it had five , five sides to it because at one , at one time you 'd tip a bucket on one then you 'd get two lengths [unclear] so it kept the tumbler more or less equal all the way round the wear and tear of it .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
spunyarn
Indicators:
what 's spunyarn ?
Negotiations:
well that 's like er tarred rope that 's what it was and er used to put a piece through the wire every foot and when you come to six feet there 'd be a piece of leather , cut in cut [unclear] one piece of leather . then you had this next fathom , the second fathom had the leather [unclear] cut in two and then have different colours at every feet as well .and this , so these were attached to what ?just a bit of wire .just a piece of wire ?and of course he used have it in his hand in a loop and he used to top it over the side with a big lead weight on and that [unclear] and he , he 'd know how much deep the er river was .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
villages
Indicators:
what are the villages ?
Negotiations:
the villages are at the bottom of the ship . cos then you come to your floor and then your sides used to go up [unclear] villages on a ship .and was the water there to go down into the villages ?yes , cos they usually all water underneath there and that used to be pumped out , every so often the engine room would pump all that out and to heat any water up [unclear] the cabins there used to be a , a small pump what used to pump the fresh water into the boiler and i used to have a [unclear] a piece of er copper [unclear] off that and just turn the steam on a little bit put it into a bucket of cold water and then instead of driving the pump that 'd go into the , the er bucket and heat the water and boil it .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
dumb hoppers
Indicators:
what do y what do you mean by dumb hopper ?
Negotiations:
dumb hoppers well they ai n't got any part , everything was hand .and why did you have them ?well that 's a , that 's a thing of that particular day , at that time th th and life erm and then they get [unclear] what they call , they bought a steam hopper , so the steam hopper would say , could get to sea quicker in half the time the dumb hoppers could and so we were rotating all the time , there used to be one dumb hopper go to sea , one steam hopper and we 'd be loading the other dumb hopper and then th course the steam hopper would be back in half the time we 'd [unclear] that and that 's how we rotate , day to day .by the hopper you mean carrying the soil ?carrying , carrying all the soil to sea .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
waterman
Indicators:
waterman ?
Negotiations:
the waterman , and he had , he had a clock on top of his hydrant , to say how much water the the the boat taken . soon did they soon take up enough he used to go on board with his book and get it signed by the mate or the er captain of the ship .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
green oar
Indicators:
what 's that ?
Negotiations:
well that 's a he very heavy stuff , that 's a er is er like er erm , oh a heavy little lead .is it a metal ?er a well i do n't know , i feel that th there used to be something in that , that [anonymization] used to burn it up now what they call their top site and when they burned it they took all the acid out of it , and there used to be all yellow stuff come out the chimney and that , when they finished burn that was always red and the germans used to come after that before the war , second world war , they used to come after that and they used to reckon they make paintwork but now you done something else different with it and they use i tell you we used to give it the name of green oar or parites
See entire sequence
Triggers:
osteoporosis
Indicators:
let's let's do a bit of definition of terms here , osteoporosis is what
Negotiations:
it 's bones that are too porous literally , so that they break very easilyaha .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
anorexia
Indicators:
how would you define anorexia ?
Negotiations:
i would say that the criteria that 's that 's sent out at the moment is is far too strict for the lot , a lot of women and at the moment you 're expected to be skeletal , whereas th , you can very well be thirteen stone and anorexic it 's , it depends on your attitude towards food .we have to find criteria for anorexiamhm .nervosa which essentially means , er loss of body weight or fifteen percent your normal preoccupation with weight , and loss of your periods for three months and a morbid fear of gaining weight . and , why , you may argue that those criteria are too strict , those are criteria that are used in a medical sense .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
misogyny
Indicators:
i wish somebody here would define exactly what misogyny is ! i thought it meant a man who hated a woman . it seems to me that the discussion right now is that we are all seeing all men hate all women !
Negotiations:
mm .and that is not true ! some men hate some women . yeah , i have worked all my life in various jobs and i 've never yet met a man who hated me nor have i hated any man , and i think there must be many women here who think the same thing . so , all men do not hate all women !would you recognise that we live a society where some men hate women and are able to use whatever power and influence they have to project an image of women which is which is hateful ?no ! i i , i think it dependsright .on your own attitude . i 'vedoesnever encountered it .right .i would agree with er , the lady behind strongly ! i mean i think that i would , really a lot of what we 're talking about here is actually male chauvinismmhm .and iyeah !deal a lot with menyeah .in in my course of work , i have three grown up sons and i think an awful lot of what we 're talking about is in your own attitude to men , and generally the most difficult men to deal with , i find , are men who for whatever reason , are actually inadequate , a little bit sensitive to women being competent i i have no difficulty at all in dealing with that , but i i 'm aware that it seems significant to me that a lot of the younger women here are much more shall we say , sensitive to erm , what i perceive as being basically male chauvinism . i 'm not excusing violence , domestic violence , imm .consider that to be exceptional , i 'm talking about the general .there . yes ?i think the evidence though is that men like okay , we 're talking generally , but if you look at the evidence of how many women are raped , one in four of girl children are molested before the age of sixteen , that to me suggests hatred ! i mean , the statistics for boy children being molested , there , there are boy children are molested but the statistics are nowhere near as large ! like , so many women are raped ! so many women are beaten ! so many women are molested when they 're really , really young ! and that to me looks like hatred , that looks like trying to destroy femininity , something that is beautiful .let's le let let me , let me take a couple of er votes . have you ever been raped ? button one for yes , button two for no . i 'm not going to pursue anybody on this one so i mean i 'm not yo you ca you can answer with er with impunity . now fourteen people in this hundred have said yes , which i think is is is shocking ! have you , have you ever been physically abused by a man ? button one for yes , button two for no . and that 's ha , even more shocking ! fifty three people have said yes , they 've been physically abused . and have you ever been emotionally abused by a man , is the final question i 'll ask at this stage ? button one for yes , and button two for no . and there we have e have phwurgh , seventy six people have said yes , they 've been emotionally abused by a man . now , maybe , maybe that is male chauvinism , that the status quo , that 's , that 's just how life is , is it ? i mean how , how would you respond to those particular votes ?well you know er , as i said , i think really an awful lot of it is in your own perception of , i mean what someone here might call emotional abuse , i would just regard as a challenge . i really do n't necessarily find every time a man and i 'm perfectly aware of the fact thatyes .a lot of men are not very good at taking a women 's opinion but i do n't necessarily regard that as a translation into some form of male misogyny .okay .some men hate men ! some men hate people full stop ! theyaha .hate children ! they dimi , they hate animals . [unclear] some women do and i 'm not quite clear that it has to be so definite as as erthere .some people feel .i think a lot of mis misogyny is behind the scenes in the allyeah .male world of the the guilds , the working men 's clubs , the freemasons , the rotarians , and even the pubs which have a predominately male culture and we do n't know what they 're saying about us behind our back and i think that is why there 's so much naivety about .just like to ask the hundred women here , we have the chippendales , and we have the men from texas now we always hear that they 're sell-outs , you knowmm .th , is the woman going there to abuse the men or to humiliate them why[unclear]is it such a sell-out then ?what , yes ?i think that , that there 's a o , clearly a very different history behind erm the use of women as sex objects and the use of men as sex objects , and a fundamental difference is that erm the , the background to erm using women as sexual objects in pornography or in prostitution is that is sexual violence , the wo the women can be raped or can be beaten i i in a sexual way and and that simply is not the case with men who are used as sexual objects . so i think it 's it 's erm , it 's a non-issue .mhm .yeah , i would just like to add something to that , and the fact that it 's not only that women , that , that men are taught that they can rape and they can abuse women , but er that it 's alright ! i can walk out or [unclear] , and get erm , you know tonnes of any any shop i can get pornography that tells me that , or tell any man who chooses to buy that magazine that 's it okay to take a women even if she says no . it 's okay to rape a women . it 's okay to rough , to be hard , to push , to rape ! you can get magazines who tellmm .you that that 's okay and that women even enjoy that ! if that 's misogyny i do n't what misogyny is !mhm .well years ago i i was at a party which was er , for a woman about to be married and there was a male stripper there . and , the women were it was very jokey , it was very jolly and lots of titters and things i 'm not making comment on whether i think it 's a good thingaha .or a badaha .thing . i have also been to a strip show which involved a woman , in a , in a club and it was a very different atmosphere . men were making all kinds of really negative remarksmm mm .about the woman , you know , oh she 's got a , she 's got a mole on her backside ! ooh i would n't have her ! or , i i ca n't re , i wo n't repeat here the things they said , but you know spread it , or get it out or whatever ! you know , really demeaning things ! very , very aggressive ! very hateful ! now , getting back to the comment the woman made earlier about men being misogynist within their own world i 'm quite convinced that a good deal of those men would go home to their wives and family and be very loving to their , to their wives and family , be respectful of their neighbours but as soon as they got in the all male environment , and this woman was there to be used , she was their property for the time that they paid their money to get through the door , they could be as misogynist , offensive and horrid as they wanted to be !mm . you see , i think , i mean thi thi it 's it 's been discussed seventy er seven of you said no , men do n't hate women and yet some of the discu , a lot of the discussion and certainly the votes you taken give a very gloomy picture ! and few people ar , a couple of suggestions have come up th th th , say that it , things will only change when men actually decide they 're going to change , when men feel that 's it 's intolerable to live a society where the kind of things which have been discussed , whether it 's the th th pornography or the the various abuses of women are seen as as just not being acceptable any more . do you think that 's ever going to happenoh sure !or do you thinkthe difficulty is that all the religions of the world have text books which are still studied , which all say that women are stupid , women are wicked , women are property , and women are revolting ! you know , you 're all taught that from childhood and always have been . i do n't quite know how you change it . things have gone er , better for women they have , in the restoration of a women publishers and there were n't any in last century , you know i er things go they seem to swing backwards and forwards all the time .but as a compilerand we stay in the same place !as a compiler of an anthology of er , of misogynist er , quotes , was it hard to find them ?no !but i di[unclear]i mean i did n't even have to look , you see , youyeah .just , everything you read you just you can justyeah .fillet it all out . i 'm , i 'm not a writer of these sort of books , i write theatre historymm .and i 'm an actress , that 's my job , you know . but , i just came across so much of it every where i was , i thought actually there there 's a book in this because it used to get , just get me so cross writing theatre history and , and reading these terrible things !there . yes ?as soon as a a a a a woman , erm or a lady stands up to be counted she 's looked about , she 's looked at as being aggressive , not assertive , as first it 's aggressive because they think it 's the challenge again . instead of realizing that they have a right to to say , if god has no respect for persons , why should men be ?i 'd like to go back to what the lady across there said about the strip showyes .now do i do n't suppose i 'm the only person that 's been in a pub toilet , a ladies toilet and i 've heard the females in the toilet saying what , exactly what they would like to do the males ! so i do n't think that erm all lad , all females are ladies .i 'm , i 'm going to try a little experiment which er , which may not work . i i did say to you at the beginning do you think er men hate women ? an and you voted on it . can i ask you the same question again ho , after this discussion , do you think men hate women ? button one for yes , and button two for no . i have to say , myself , you know i feel one of the worst thing you can call a man in the english language is a term that 's used for a women 's genitalia . i er i , well there is n't another word that women can actually use , it does , it does make me wonder . however , well now then th the er , the vote 's changed . thirty three of you thought that men hated women before , now it 's gone down to thirty one soso any of you gentleman watching who have bruised egos yo you have your supporters here . e er any any final word ? yes ?erm , i think it 's quite interesting what you just said about er men using the , the word cunt , which actuallyi ca n't broadcasti thinkthat , could you say that again ?okay .men using the wo er , female genitalia as a a derogatory term and if we actually go back to the roots of that word erm , to me it 's like basic shows you what misogyny 's about the actual root of that word it means , seat of power . and , our women 's power , and men are scared of our power !so you would like to reclaim a word that i 'm notoh yeah !allowed to broadcast ?yeah !i think we should all be able to say that word and feel proud about it .how many additions of scottish women will there be before we can do that ? yes ?i think , i think you do need to look at power , i think that 's quite a crucial ermm .area that we need to think about . a lot of women here have said it 's up to women , it 's up to mothersmm .but i mean , if you look at where cultural power is who has control over images that we see , books that we read , films that we go and see ? i think it 's very interesting , the film cape fear , that 's out at the moment , which says , is the scariest film you 'll ever see . and the fear there is the same fear as walking down the road in , at night wondering if you 're going to be raped !mm .it actually works on the fear of rape . and that 's that 's gon na be a box office hit ! i think we need to look at who has control over what we see .have you ever complained about an an image or an advert or a film ? i mean , have you ever written to anyone or phoned anyone ?my complaining was only effective cos we actually took direct action over some advertising for erm swim wear . erm , yeah we , we did take direct action and so eventually the ad was dropped , but if we 'd just complained and not taken any action the ad would n't have been dropped .what is direct action ?were yowas n't exactly legal !did it involve th , i mean a spray can or erit actually involved destroying erm , some of the product to just to indicate women were about it . and iti see .was only after then , only after actually threatening property that the ad was dropped . before that , they would n't drop it .well it would be irresponsive of me to say there 's a lesson for you in that ! i shall simply say thank you allvery much indeed . and thank you for joining us . goodbye .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
beautiful
Indicators:
can you define what beautiful is ?
Negotiations:
its only in the eye of the beholder , every body sees something different .
you recognise beauty when you see it ?
erm , yes i think so .
maybe i should ask you another question , does , doesany one you know have a beautiful body , button one for yes and button two for no ? er that 's interesting , almost a complete reversal thereseventy seven know 's somebody with a beautiful body and , and twenty three of you do n't . will the seventy seven who said yes like to say who this is , yesmy two year old son i think he 'si knew youhe 's just gorgeousyeah , itand i hope that i can train him to keep it that waymmany one else ? , yeserm , most of the people i know , particularly the one 's i like , i look at them and i look at them being beautiful , just because i like them , erm , but i 'm aware of also looking at other people and thinking oh that 's gross you knowreally ?yesyesi think its a case of the grass being greener on the other side , you know , you never seem to be happy with what you have yourself you always see it in somebody else , gosh i wish i had her hair or her skin or her body shape , you just never seem to be satisfied with what you 've got and yet other people see you as looking very attractivemm , mm , mm , mm , yeah . does it matter , i mean does it matter how you look ?oh yeswhat a silly question of course it matters how you look up there , yesit , it ought not to matter , but unfortunately i think it does , i think we live in a society where the visual appearance is every thing .do you think that 's changed , i mean do you think a hundred years ago , two hundred years ago , five hundred years agoi thinkthat did n't apply ?i think the fashions have definitely changed , you know themmsixties , twiggy was a very in , in figure in vogue er nowadays that would be termed anorexic i would imaginedmm , yesi think fashions have changed but i think people 's attitude 's have n't really changed , people have always been striving to improve their , their appearance , even like in roman times when they used coal and , andmmhenna for their hair and erm , the men put oil on their bodies to make themselves look better , you know , more attractive to the female 's and , so i think erm , we 've always strived to improve ourselves our appearances .so its a basic part of being a human animal , yes .but beauty is n't , the say beauty is only skin deep , but what about the million people who live in this country who are dealing with siriasis , for whom , that they 'll , they 'll live their life with no cure , no prospect of cure and er those are people who we only wish , i 'm one of them , er , i also run a self help group in ayrshire and there are a great many of us who would like to , i think extend a more , more of an understanding to the general public , because its not how we regard ourselvesmm .unfortunately its a revulsion by the other members of the public , they think it looks , and we often say we feel like lepers , sowell how do you change that attitude because , i mean it is , it , it , people for whatever reason are are drawn to , to admire and and like people who look conventionally attractive ?i agree with what that lady said down there , i think its very much erm an inner confidencemm , mmand how you feel yourself , that 's how you present yourself to other people , i think if you present yourself in a confident manner , i think people pick up on that and i do , i do n't think beauty is necessarily what you see , i think its how you feel within yourself and how you present yourself to people .now confidence has manifested in lots and lots of ways and its appealing to that confidence as much as the insecurity , er that makes the advertiser 's and the manufacturer 's of all manner of products er , their huge profits , now i guess we all spend money on , on various products and er , do you , do you worry about how much you spend on the body beautiful or just the body ? , do you or , i mean does any , i wonder if you think you spend too much on it ? , let me ask you that , do you spend too much money on your body ? , er button one for yes and button two for no . er , now you see all good scot 's here , ninety one said nothat either means your very confident in what you spend , i think you have n't got enough to spend as much as you 'd liked to spend or there is no such thing as too much . why did you say no out of interest ? , i mean would you spend more if you had it or are you all well balanced ?yes i would say i would spend more if i had it , i think beauty 's a question of moneymmmoney for erm operations , for changing your nose , your ears , whateverreallywe , we would all spend more if we had it to spend , we would all like to look more beautifulso they , so theyand is n't it hoped your buying , hope that you will look more beautiful .up thereyou do n't have to spend a lot of money to look just nice looking i mean d' you know , er just you know nice appearing , clean appearing or something like that that will do and beauty most of it its come from inside .i do n't spend any money , i just use soap and waterand boots own cleansing lotion for my mascara and that 's it , only buy mascara , eye liner and lipstick and blusher and that 's it and it does me six months of the yearonly the saiga , that 's right there yesi ca n't agree with the lady over there that you know if money were know object we would all go out and get knew noses andmmpinned back ears i wonder if people realize just what a hazardous thing it is , to have plastic surgery . i was forced to have it because i smashed my face up in an accidentmmand while i started off thinking i might finish up better than i startedmm , mmby the time i had gone through five operations i decided that as long as i could breath , that would do me and i , i would really recommend every body to think twice before having any form of plastic surgery , particularly unless its , if its not absolutely necessary .mm , is there any body here who 's had cosmetic plastic surgery , who , who 'd wants to or has any views on it , up there , yes .yes , erm , i had a new face made eleven years ago , and i 'm very happy with this face .wha , what , why , i mean what were the circumstances ?i had no bones in the jaw , which meant having to start below the eyes and re-build a whole new face .so from your point of view , despite , presumably you had a number of operations likeno i had it all done in oneand thatwhich lasted approximately six hours on the table .i think a medical problem different say for instance for myself i got an awful bash on the nose playing badminton and they thought it was broken , however it mended and i wished it had broken because its mended a bit , but i do not believe in spending money on cosmetic surgery because i think if you make the best of what you have and think of all the people were mutilated by diseasemm , mmyou should be thankful with what you have .i think its the pressure 's you see in er magazines at the moment its the , the full lip look , you know , erm , that certain models have sort of erm put in vogue at the moment andmm , mmi think no mine are too thin , or maybe their not , and , and this , and seeing this in magazines , seeing it on television it make 's me think that maybe i could have thatmm , mmand if i had the money i could have thatmm , mmi could look as good as thatyes .i think its very difficult to be yourself these days because you , you see so many magazines with beautiful people in and you think that 's how i want to look and its , its a sort of , pressure thing all the timemmand even if you think no i would n't really spend the money to make myself more beautiful , you think , oh maybe , if i really , if i did have that money would i do it ?mmyou know , just to , to keep up with , with the times really .mm , mmwell i work as a psychotherapist and it seems to me that for some people change is impossible and when that is the case then its my job to help them to come to terms with who they are and what they are and how there going to remain , but the other side of it is helping people to change and i have to say usually its to loose weight , that 's the biggest reason people want to change .well i can say personally that i went from a size twelve to a twenty and its a medical problem , its the , not an eating one though , you know any thing to with any diet or any thing like that , completely medical so er it takes a bit of coping with when you 've been slim and then all of a sudden you have this weight that , no diet will remove .i recently lost three stone in weight and wondered how else i could improve myself and i was lucky in that i had had a mastectomy for a cancer about seven years ago , so i went ahead and had breast reconstruction . i would n't recommend it , it , it was a very traumatic nine hour operationreally ?mm , mm , its i 'm delighted with ityesbut i think for people to go and have plastic surgery of that length of time for erm any thing else other than medical reasonsmmits a very individual , personal choicei lived in switzerland for fifteen years and i knew many many people who after having had their children would have breasts implants and , they just felt that they 'd got back the figure that they had before the children and particularly one of my friends she had twins and her stomach was so stretched and after her pregnancy she 'd got all this sort of sagging skin and what she regretted was that she waited fifteen years before she decided to go and have something done and she just felt so much better about it .now , what 's the difference between switzerland and scotland is it , is it that the swiss have more money ? , is it that the swiss are more body conscious , is it that the scot 's are more puritanical , they think that there are more important things to think about , what do you think ?yes i think that the scot 's are more puritanical and also i , i had three babies , erm i was pregnant out there and i flew back to scotland to have them and the difference between going to a swiss gynaecologist and seeing a doctor here was incredible . in switzerland the gynaecologist would not let you put on too much weight because he was concerned that you 'd end up looking like an old cow andbecause , you come back here and all the scottish women were vast and they lost their figure 's and it was just sort of almost taken for granted that you have a baby and you loose your figure , but you do n't mind because you 've got the children .yesi must admit i , i really do n't agree with that , i mean i find that many women who have had erm children actually their figure has improved after the children , they look a great deal better and i certainly do n't think that many women in scotland looked vast after they 've had children , i totally disagree with that .it was interested to hear what this lady said about putting on so much weightmm , mmand twice in the last nine months i 've been in the united states and i was amazed at the number of very large womenmmbut they were all dressed in bright colours and fashionable clothes and obviously thoroughly enjoying themselves , there are very few jane fonda 's walking about the streets of washington or new yorkit seems to me that british manufacturers are missing out on a market that would be welcome by bigger womenahaif they would only produce the same styles that they produce for the up to size twelve .talking about , about image , i mean my body 's like a sumo wrestler without my clothes onbut that 's no problem for me , it used to be a problem but it is n't now because i 've worked on building up my confidence in other things so i 'm good at quite a lot of things and i always keep re-enforcing that that i 'm good at doing these things . we 've , we 've kind of shied away from the whole thing about image and about fatmmwomen are not sexy skinny women are not sexy , really skinny women we have to be like the madonna type woman and i think that the , the , its about money and its about co , its about the consumer and about money and about making money from an image that somebody somewhere has seen as the normal perfect woman and the norm can be any thing it could be whatever you want it to be .i work for a large cosmetic surgery company in englandyeahand i think its true that if women did have the money particularly of their own they would spend it on their body 's or their faces .what makes you say that ?because surgery does give a lot of women more confidence and men as well .and men , what kind of surgery do men go for ?they like their noses done , or their ears doneyeaha tremendous amount of surgery is done for men .okay , down there .its all this talk about ladies who are fat , what about ladies who are thin who just can not put on weightmmerm the ladies who are a bit obese and get all the sympathy you get all so skin or just skinny and suddenly you try to put on some weight , you just ca n't .fifty seven degrees of discontent here , yeser , after i had my children my whole body sagged and i 'd lost a lot of weight and i could n't put it on and i was really skinny and there was no way i could eat , eat a lot and i still would n't put weight on so i started on the weight training and that does n't cost me money and now i 've started putting weight on , so for the skinny kids i think the thing is to do the weight trainingokayand build yourself up that way .yes .my husband is a minister and an artist and he says that the cannon of the female figure is various and he sees beauty in all typesyesand unless its a real medical problem be content with your figuredo you say that as well ?er , yes , yes but i would need to , to loose a little weightoh , oh . who said that ? , did you say that or your husband ?oh , no it was myself yeahwell you see that 's exactly the problem thoughyes yes , yesi mean , you know we , we can all be very er , er liberal minded and enlightened about every body else , but when it comes to ourselves with a , and there are some exceptions and , and , and you 've identified yourselves here amongst this hundred , but a lot of us if were absolutely honest we would like to change things i mean one way or another and we all do various things , i mean we certainly wash our hair and people say you do n't need to wash your hair , if you leave it long enough it 'll wash itself , i do n't know what else you do maybe you shave bits of this and wax bits of that andand i 'm certainly wearing paint tonight , quite a bit of it because its very hot under here and you would n't want to see me without it , but that 's me saying that , i mean why do i ? , why do i ? , why are we all wearing make-up ? , do we actually think we look better ? , are we trying to disguise something ? , yeserm , i pressed yes for having liking my own body , and i do , erm but i also like the slight improvements that i make on it like erm my hairyeahcolouring and , but its for myself erm , my husband never ever says to me oh your not wearing make-up or erm when i go to work i do n't wear itmm , mmerm because i 'm pre-occupied about with what i 'm doingmm , mmbut if i 'm thinking about myself then yes i look and i put on make-upmm , mmand i perhaps then wax my legs or erm , but not to the extreme of having some one else involved in my improvements , i make my own improvements in my bodymm , mmer the one 's that i choose to make , but i would n't go and ask someone to , to help me with it .behind youits the pressure that er everybody 's under to look a certain way and the look tends to have you know lipstick or , and every thing else and that 's what 's expected of you , so most people do it .but is there any thing wrong with that ?that 's up to yourself , i personally do n't do it at allmmi 've not worn make up since i 've got married , but even then it was just a wee drop , but , i do n't enjoy wearing make up , i feel dirty with it on , but , what ever you want to do , its up to yourself .right , yeserm , i wear make up as a mask basically gives me confidence and it stops me having to be myself which i feel is n't good enough for the publicbut then with with your mask on do you feel more like yourself ?er , well i 'm , i 'm a waitress and erm when i 'm working i consider the restaurant my stage and i have to be somebody else because i 'm worried that you know who i am is n't good enough to entertain these people .i just feel i 'm a mother so er all week , and i do n't wear make up all week and i do n't dress up all week just a jeans and a jumper whereas tonight you knew you were coming some whereyeahso 's tonight i 'm a different person cos i 've put make up and i went and got my hair done and i feel different tonight but i do n't feel under pressure that i have to wear make up all the time cos nobody treats me any different whether i 've got make up on or whetherrighti have n't got make up onso its not for your man and its not for society and its not forno its not for my husband cos my husband says you look nice whether i 've got make up on or whether i have n't got make up on so reallyit does nee bother me you know .yessorry , i run a health spa in scotland and i see an awful lot of women who obviously come in for some slight improvement but quite frankly it is the stress factor that shows in the face that does n't make them quite so beautiful because their personalities comes across for when their stressed it shows in their face and i notice when they leave only after a few days the stress has gone and their personality shines through and their far more beautiful .where was the little girl , or er younger i do n't want to make up because , but now i feeling i 'm aged it , i should be wearing some make up here , with just a feeling we should be , when i look in the mirror oh its getting old sohow do some say just like er that , when was younger do n't need them is erm face is perfect i like it yeahright , okay so its to make you look youngeryeah i think so , just[unclear]there 's another unfashionable and[unclear]incorrect truthwere all supposed to look younger than we are , are we ? , yesa lot of what has been said about make up has been very negative its to disguise or improve , its also an expression of er inner identity and its not something that 's new to the twentieth century , its something that we 've been doing you know since the beginning of time with war paint and what not . i think that its , its often what 's inside that comes out and what we wear and , and make up and i think perhaps its men who have the restriction of not being able to do that , they are not perhaps getting the opportunity to express their inner self .i work in a very male dominated field and the amountwhat 's that ? what what is n't ?what is n't ?i work in the local government but i work in economical development which is predominantly male , its building construction , surveys , architectsmm , mmmy make up and the way i dress reflects the meetings i 'm going to . if i 'm going to a meeting where i know i 'm going to be the only woman i put my war paint on , if i 'm just going to be in the office all day i slob around in a skirt and a jumper with very little make up .you know , i 'd like to ask a question , why is it so , why is it so frightening to spoil yourself ? , why is it such a , a wrong thing to spoil yourself , erm we 've been talking about make up we 've been talking aboutmmbeauty products , if you want to spend fifty pence or a pound on something and , and you know from your high street chemist or your going to spend seventy pounds on the same sort of cream , that 's up to you if you , if it makes you feel good , go for it .if you want to spend seven thousand pounds onthat 's right , if it makes you feel good inside i think you should go for it .yespretty much on what the lady 's saying , surely if you get up in the morning and you look in the mirror and you do n't like what you see and you apply some make up and you feel better , or you hate your nose so you have it , you know altered , surely if it makes you feel good then why not ? , if you 've got the money and its not harming any one then go for it .i think there 's a more serious thing that we have n't actually touched on which is that many people feel that they are discriminated against when they go for certain postsmm , mmand jobs because of the way they look particularly if they happen to be[unclear]slightly over weight or very over weight and i mean that is something we have n't really looked at , but i mean is it effecting people quite seriously ?mm , i think maybe at the start though when i said do you have a beautiful body , maybe i asked the wrong questions , let me ask you this question at the end , do you like your body ? , er button one for yes and button two for no , and maybe we 'll get a different answer then , eighty five people said no they did n't have a beautiful body , but fifty six people here say yes they like their body , forty four is too many people who do n't , why not ? , who said no ? , why , why do n't you ? , yesthe bulges are in the wrong placessays who ?i do , because its not for vainty 's sake , i do feel at times going upstairs oryeahexerting , that i carry too much weight and i know that and its like the lady said its not the chocolate biscuits but it is erm self ermyou ca n't get the self disciplinethat 's rightsome how , up there , yesi think its because erm i do n't , i 'm not happy with mine because it it shows signs of ageing and it reminds me that i 'm getting older and i do n't like thatyeah , any other , yesi know my body bulge is in the wrong places and i know i have signs of ageing , i was reminded even this morning by a close friend about my grey hairs , which i do n't give too hoops aboutsome friend some friendbuti 'm happy with my body because my husband loves it and my children cuddle it and i feel great about it .yesi should say that you should think , well those of us that are healthy any way , we should be glad that our body 's have stood us this length of time and have allowed us to come here to this programme and to take part in it , i 'm certainly delighted that mine 's a , gave me three children , nothing to complain about .mm , mmi just find it very difficult to understand paying over two thousand for , er to have your tummy bulge removed . i ca n't see how any body can justify spending two thousand pounds on , on getting a bit of fat removed some [unclear]i think that 's rather , that 's , that 's a cheap deal i think is n't it two thousand pounds ?surely its relative , i mean two thousand pounds to you might be quite a lot of money , but to someone else , its , its not a big deal .oh i think a fact , i think its a fact two thousand pounds is a lot of money even to some body that 's relative , you knowyes , but who can afford it ?there 's people in the states who have this sort of thing done and its not , its not a problembut were scottish women and i think to a scottish woman two thousand pounds , i , i mean i know a lot of scottish womennot all scottish womenwell perhaps you know we 'll be able to find out for oursel , if a hundred scottish women with two thousand seem like a lot of money .but it depends what your buying for your two thousand pounds , if your buying happiness and your content with yourself then its surely money well spentwell i , i put itits not guaranteedi put it to this hundred , would you spend two thousand pounds on having a tummy tuck if your tummy needing tucking ? , i mean i know some of the , some of the more slender women , i wo n't say skinny here , what , are n't in need of a tummy tuck , but well there 's you as a twenty two scottish women would spend two thousand pounds , what do you think of that ?their madtheir madyesi just go to bed at night and hope for a miracle that i 'll get up in the morningwell maybe you 'll get itand i 'll be slim againyes , yes , go on .i know many scottish women who will spend more than two thousand pounds going on a skiing holiday abroad and the risk is far greater than submitting to surgery .let me ask you this final question . people have talked a bit about their children and er and , and how beautiful they are , supposing you were a fairy god mother and you were at a christening and you had a wand and you could endow one gift , would it be beauty ? , is beauty the most important gift ? , button one for yes and button two for no and i 'd love to go round the world and ask this question , but out of one hundred scottish women seven of you say yes , but ninety three of you think there is a more important gift than beauty and what that might be we shall talk about another time , but for all thank you now , thank you for watching , good bye
See entire sequence
Triggers:
love (4)
Indicators:
i 've never heard love here defined as i would as the totally unconditional love that happens between a woman and a child , probably from the moment of birth that bonds them through life , that 's the only love that i could ever admit to .
Negotiations:
that 's two different kinds of love though then , love , loving your neighbour i suppose is the widest sense and er and the love between a parent and child , are those more recognisable as , as true love if you like than the kind of romantic love , sexual love that we 've been talking about , yesthird kind of love , a bit more flippant , love of chocolate
which i was , which i was very worried about because i was told it was a substitute for sexand then i read this amazing article which said no its completely the other way around , sex is when you , you get sex when you do n't get enough chocolate .i 'm beginning to wonder if we need more words for love , i mean if , if love is the only word we have for chocolate erfor your fellow man , for your child and for your , for your partner , is there a prosody of vocabulary here .i , er i was gon na spring another type of love because we all spend a lot of money on it , the love of pets of animalsmm , mmand there 's a lot of er of what people even leave their , their fortunes to look after some animal and they do n't leave it to people like er the lady sitting here who are , folk , folk are starving , but then its because people are needed and people are needed by their children , but there also needed by their men folk and i think its when they turn to being a mother to their men that , you know , even the , the love that they have , er whether its been a sexual love at one time , er friendly love becomes a very caring love and er i think that 's what we all remember erm those of us who have lost our husbands , that would like to have that , that part back againmm , mmof being needed , and being er allowed to care for someoneup therei think the mother and child love is n't always pleasant and i think that 's quite worrying to some mother 's if they ca n't love their child in the way that people expect them to .sheena , can i be the odd one out and say i 've been in love with one man for forty five years , i have n't heard any body saying any thing very nice about that , i would like to say its wonderful .oh ihere , herethere , here , here they , they , a lot of them say , i do n't know if you are the odd one out i mean there areno i quite agree , i also agree with the lady who said that one of the important things is that you like the person , i well speaking from experience , i started out liking somebodymm , mmfor whom that i had to decide whether i was going to marry him or give him up and decided i could n't give him up so i married him and was extremely happy and was shattered when he died and i , i , a , it went from you know i , i never real , thought i would be as happy , could be as happy as i wasmmer , but i quite agree one person er there 's nothing , nothing greater .yeah i 'm , i 'm interested that that so many of you go from love to marriage as er swiftly as the horse and carriage similarly would suggest , i mean it , every one 's experience of love is , is different , every body here is , we 've been talking about love between er men and women , but there 's also love between women and women which we have n't talked about at all . do you think society er smiles on all forms of love or do you think some kinds of love and loving are , are actually seen as being lesser than others there , there seems to be less sympathetic for er i mean , yes
See entire sequence
Triggers:
anorexia
Indicators:
how would you define anorexia ?
Negotiations:
i would say that the criteria that 's that 's sent out at the moment is is far too strict for the lot , a lot of women and at the moment you 're expected to be skeletal , whereas th , you can very well be thirteen stone and anorexic it 's , it depends on your attitude towards food .we have to find criteria for anorexiamhm .nervosa which essentially means , er loss of body weight or fifteen percent your normal preoccupation with weight , and loss of your periods for three months and a morbid fear of gaining weight . and , why , you may argue that those criteria are too strict , those are criteria that are used in a medical sense .
See entire sequence
Triggers:
limit offspring
Indicators:
by limiting offspring, i assume you mean sterilization.
Negotiations:
not really, i meant more like laws that people follow really closely to the best of their ability.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
eugenics
Indicators:
that's not a controversial view at all, and it's definitely not what eugenics means.
Negotiations:
"what eugenics means"
-oops, the definition says "practice" as well as "belief"
well i believe in it at least.
i'm not saying that " it would be nice if the people with the best genes wanted to have the most children." (though i agree with that)
i'm saying that a proposed law, if implemented correctly, that limits reproduction based on actual intelligence, would be a good thing. some people think eugenics is "bad terrible hitler"... not so. eugenics is totally controversial.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
intelligence (4)
Indicators:
intelligence is hard to define and describe even by neurologists and reducing that complexity down to one number is incredibly challenging if not impossible.
Negotiations:
firstly, i mentioned that. ("for want of better measure of intelligence")
i would love a better measure of intelligence. [some theorize that intelligence can be defined in categories, too...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/theory_of_multiple_intelligences) so, maybe a complex way to combine them. like a total of all of them. idc.
theories of multiple intelligences are taken care of by iq itself, read up on the g factor.
intelligence can never be measured, the concept isn't nearly robust enough.
separating intelligence into categories *is* a far better way to go about it, but by it's very nature implies you cannot sum them. a brilliant mathematician make suck in all other areas such as music ability, linguistic skills, etc. making them look like a retard compared to a guy who is okay at math but also descent in those other categories. the point is intelligence is too complicated for us to try to breed certain kinds of it. it is a complex ploygenic trait we still don't fully understand. it is also downright silly to consider since, as we know it isn't really feasible to control the populations genitals in any ethical manner.
[sta-cite]>i only used the iq test in my example because so far it is (seemingly) the most available measure of intelligence
[end-cite]
this is not a good reason to use anything. i know it sucks but i have nothing better does not justify using a sucky measurement.
getting op to define intelligence probably boils down to:
people i agree with are intelligent.
people i disagree with are dumb.
intelligence and eugenics snobs always think this way.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
covered
Indicators:
not sure what that means. if you mean 'refuted', then i'm going to have to admit that i'm not going to go around compiling your argument.
Negotiations:
no it does not mean refuted. it means i discussed everything you did throughout the rest of the thread already. i didn't talk about the polygenic inheritance of intelligence in the first post. i did mention it few times down the thread.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
intelligent
Indicators:
what is intelligence? is a great painter who is poor at math and science not intelligent? i know many people who are conventionally smart but lack social skills and can't do art for shit.
Negotiations:
too your other point: consider intelligence the potential for generating ideas beneficial to man.
"the potential for generating ideas beneficial to man.", will be less useful compared to ruthlessness and strength if we find ourselves in an apocalyptic situation.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
uneducated
Indicators:
also, what is your definition of uneducated?
Negotiations:
uneducated, in this post, refers to a person that is either unwilling or not intelligent enough to find the answer to their question, when the answer to that question is simple to find.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
risky (2)
Indicators:
you have a strange definition of "risky"
Negotiations:
while it's true a mistake can cost you your life, they often don't (cars have been getting safer since the 1920s) and the fact is that because so many people spend so much time driving, we are better at it than a lot of other things and so are much more likely to not make those mistakes (though, sadly, they do happen).
i define "risky" as a high likelihood that something out of your control can kill you in the given activity, and the things that can kill you and aren't in your control to some degree in a car are very infrequent. playing russian roulette is risky because there is a 1 in 6 chance that a bullet is going through your head. driving there is a 1 in 1 million chance that you're going to be killed in an accident, maybe a 1 in 10,000 chance that you'll be in an accident at all.
by "risky" i mean that the total, accumulated risk is greater than the benefits of driving a car, at least in a large number of scenarios.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
eating unhealthy
Indicators:
we have to define what we're talking about when saying not eating healthily.
Negotiations:
obesity and heart disease are those causes of death. you can eat unhealthily and not get those things. a poorly informed vegan is just as unhealthy, imo, but in different ways, as a meathead at the gym who lives off protein shakes and chicken, but neither will likely have obesity related disease or, barring steroid use, heart disease.
it's statistics yo.
could doesn't enter into it. an obese smoker has a higher likelihood of dying from those conditions than a vegan health nut.
why would obesity be such a ubiquitously bad thing? i feel like you're dissenting on the idea that water is wet.
nah, i don't think i'm disagreeing with you, more like suggesting more specificity to be accurate, not just to nitpick.
to be more succinct- eating healthily is very ambiguous and can be done in different ways with various results. the end goal of eating healthily is to avoid disease and to feel good. heart disease and obesity are two major conditions that can result from particular diets. *some ways of* eating "unhealthily" can result in these things, but those are leading causes of death and they are the actual things we are trying to avoid.
that's why i used the example of the really muscular guy and the vegan who do not make well rounded health choices. neither will likely die from malnutrition, obesity, or heart disease, but their diets have an non-negligible effect on their health.
however, you said:
[sta-cite]>by the death rate, eating unhealthy is the most dangerous thing that you can do.
[end-cite]i think *becoming obese* or *letting your cholesterol* go up are the most dangerous things you can do, and they take a particular kind of unhealthy eating.
anyway, i understood what you were trying to say and i agree with it, i just thought i'd clarify as a response and now i'm clarifying that clarification. not trying to be a dick at all, haha.
i was a bit confused and thought you thought the jury was out on obesity.
sorry.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
personal insurances
Indicators:
what do you mean personal insurances? like home insurance?
Negotiations:
i should have been more specific. i meant life and accident insurance (not sure what you'd call that in english)
See entire sequence
Triggers:
risky (2)
Indicators:
if you want to define risky as "fatal for the driver," then sure the point stands.
Negotiations:
however, if you consider the sentiment of the argument rather than the semantics -- i.e. driving is risky because there's a lot at stake both in terms of your life as well as that of others -- then it becomes a more subjective point of debate.
that's a separate point. there are two arguments here:
1) the risk of hitting someone is still a risk - i agree with this, although i fear that the statistics will be misused in measuring this risk, as they are being misused all over this thread.
2) walking is only risky because of driving. if nobody drove then it would be less risky - this might be true, but it is irrelevant. we live in a world where people drive. the only thing op can control is whether s/he drives or relies on another mode of transport.
the latter is what i'm talking about.
that's fair.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
pain (2)
Indicators:
not by any meaningful definition of pain. you equate pain and response to negative stimulus.
Negotiations:
what else is pain than a response to a negative stimulus? i believe that is the *only* meaningful definition of pain.
ah it is cool then. your rules, your game.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
chicken egg (2)
Indicators:
it depends on how you define chicken egg.
Negotiations:
is a chicken egg an egg that will hatch into a chicken? or is it an egg that was laid by a chicken? the answer to this question determines which came first.
a chicken egg is an egg that will hatch into a chicken, independent of its parents. if a horse and donkey mate, they will have a mule, not a "horse offspring".
good analogy. i was trying to think of one.
so what do you call the egg laid after two proto-chickens of the same species mate?
if there isn't a chicken baby, then an x-egg.
if you're trying to make the point that gwhizzz made [over here](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2rcpqy/cmv_the_egg_came_first_before_the_chicken/cnersdk) i think that's a good point that changes my view from "it's clear once you make a semantic choice" to "you can make the semantics go so deep that it stops even being fun, and that's saying something."
See entire sequence
Triggers:
capable
better
Indicators:
your definition of "better" and "capable" seem a bit circular. what is better and what is capable? how does the capacity to flying make one empirically better?
Negotiations:
if not empirically, then observably. one culture has something the other does not. in that particular regard, it is better than the other.
african culture has ebola and we do not. so africa is better? what allows you to determine if what one culture has is better than what the other has? the navi had really big trees so they are better than the humans. they had a cool connection with nature that the humans did not which makes the navi more capable of surviving there.
the navi are also living within their means, and appear to generally be positive for the planet they inhabit (to the point that other animals join to fight alongside them). earth at this point appears to still require resources to survive that have become rare enough for corporations to wage war with aliens over.
at the end of the movie, the navi as a race are doing fine - but we never really learn how humanity is doing. is it not entirely within reason that the corporations involved would never return to the navi's planet, and that it would be humanity who become extinct long before the navi?
where does this leave the argument about stronger races? which species is empirically superior when viewed through a timeline of this scope?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
capable (3)
better
Indicators:
more capable of... what? what is "better"? better for whom? less capable than what?
Negotiations:
one society develops medicine. the other does not. one is capable of living comfortably longer, which the other lacks. that makes the first more capable. having something the other does not.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
free will
Indicators:
what do you mean by free will?
Negotiations:
the ability to choose between two things and actually have had the ability to make two choices.
given that, no matter how the universe works, you necessarily always end up making only one of the two choices, how do you define the “ability to make two choices”? it seems to me that it is impossible by definition.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
choices (4)
choice (2)
Indicators:
you're saying choice, but what you mean is "the dominoes fell in the unique chemical soup that is your brain and your body reacted as it must"
Negotiations:
the difference being that in the way i describe it is that you're just describing a more complex version of a falling object, but what we want when we talk of free will is the falling object to move some way that isn't determined by those determined physical rails of gravity and drag. if we can find a way choices are made that's deliberate, not random or determined that is what we mean, not the compatibilists equivocation of choice.
that doesn't sound like a free will, but more like a lost will. we need a set of rails (personality, genes, experiences, laws) to make choices, otherwise we'd be stuck in some sort of limbo. so i think it's more productive to rationalize the will we have instead of lamenting a will that can't even exist.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
free will
Indicators:
well, this is where i ask you to define "free will"
Negotiations:
if you define it it in a way that's incompatible with determinism, then sure, you can easily say it doesn't exist, but why is that definition more correct than the compatibilist one?
surely the reason we seek "free will" is because we see a superficial incompatibility between the rules of the universe and our own perception of will, which makes us uncomfortable? essentially, the point of compatibilism is that "free will" as it is commonly defined is not necessary to solve this dilemma. you just need to learn to be comfortable with a truly materialist, monist concept of the mind.
which is why i like to phrase it as i did initially: you may not have "free will", but you certainly have "will" and that's all that matters.
that's a very good point. i suppose i may not have the ability to make variety of choices in any particular situation, which is how i would define "free will", but i do at least have the ability to make the single choice i am capable of making.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
can
Indicators:
what do you mean by "can"?
Negotiations:
i have just gone to the kitchen for some water. but i could have gone for some milk, too. most people will agree with this, it's a rather basic intuition. in what sense is it *not* true?
you couldn't have chosen to get the milk. you recognize the options, but you could not have taken them.
you have repeated that three times with no explanation. *why* not?
because your actions are frankly just chemistry. there is no point where your desire to do one thing or another changes the chemical reactions that determine what you do. as a matter of fact, quite the opposite has been shown by scientific experimentation thus far, suggesting that your actions are determined and your brain simply rationalizes the results.
you recognize the other options, but you don't get to control which ones you take. therefore, you have no free will.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
best
Indicators:
then you have to define best.
Negotiations:
to me, we've yet to see the best interpretation of lotr.
some people like the theatrical cut, some like the extended cut.
the best version would be universally considered as such. that neither of these cuts are universally considered the best lotr interpretation is indicative of the fact that neither are as good as they could be.
i didn't say the theatrical cuts are the best, i just said they're better. there's no such thing as a perfect movie.
it's probably worth pointing out the return of the king won best picture for it's theatrical cut though.
[sta-cite]> i'm more interested in lotr being the best movies they could possibly be
[end-cite]who gave it best picture?
the academy.
best picture doesn't mean it was the best possible adaptation of tolkien's work... it means it was better than all the other pictures that year.
i understand.
your claim is that the theatrical cuts of jackson's interpretation of tolkein's lord of the rings series are the definitive, and therefore best, film adaption of the source.
that's not the case since the best version would be considered as such by everyone.
that is not how 'best' works.
so something can only be considered better than something else if the opinion is unanimous?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
marriage (4)
Indicators:
the term "marriage" is never used synonymously with "love;" there is always an implication that there will be rights and responsibilities granted to the couple by some larger organization, be it their church community, social network, or the government.
it sounds like you're defining "marriage" as being what americans would consider a "long-term relationship," which is something decided by only those two people, and can be broken without any external ramifications. if that's what the word means in australia, then i agree that it would be silly for there to need to be a huge debate about whether homosexuals can date indefinitely.
Negotiations:
throughout history that hasn't been the case. i have put the source for a video where i got the majority of my argument from, it has a small amount of talk about religion however is quite good at explaining what i am trying to say: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqw0elzfgni
"marriage" and "love" or "long-term relationship" may have been synonymous back in the 16th century, like that video says, but language changes. once legal rights and responsibilities were given to couples, it became the government's business who was married to whom. at some point in the past 500 years, it became accepted that "marriage" is an officially-recognized union.
trying to make everyone else switch back to a 500-year-old definition of "marriage" is like arguing that "awesome" and "awful" should both mean "terrifying." that is no longer what (almost) anyone means when they say those words, and using an archaic definition means you aren't understanding the debate.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
testing (2)
Indicators:
can you define test?
dok 1, 2, 3, 4? summative? formative? multiple choice? select all. select narrative?
Negotiations:
as /u/iiiblackhartiii pointed out i whole-heartedly neglected the work involved in many physics and maths tests (despite having taken my physics exam today) i would have to limit the 'definition' of test to multiple choice and questions where one is asked to define a word, event or person.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
good person (2)
good people
good (3)
Indicators:
hmmm... i feel like this is kind of just playing word games over your definition of "good".
Negotiations:
based on your definition of a "good person", you've basically defined a good person such that anyone who commits an atrocity is automatically disqualified from being a good person. which is fine, but i don't think this is really saying anything different from those who say "even good people are easy to corrupt and manipulate into evil." you just disagree over the definition of "good".
but this doesn't really say anything different about the state of the world. bob might say "most people are good", and "sometimes good people do bad things", while you say "most people are average", and "sometimes average people do bad things". but i would say both statements are equally unsettling.
so to the degree that i find it worthwhile to change your view, i think your criteria for "good person" is far too strict. from your definition of a good person, parts #1 and #2 necessitate a certain level of education or intelligence. figuring out the "correct" set of ethical first principles and being able to reason an ideal state of the world from them is no small intellectual task. but i'd argue that this *is* an intellectual task, not a moral one. i think its often unreasonable to call a well intentioned person who fails at #1 and #2 "not a good person". or at least i think this conflicts with the way normal people talk. you may disagree, but its a pretty standard human convention to call a friendly good samaritan that is polite and tries to help people a good person, even if they don't have the philosophical chops to figure out the right choice in really difficult ethical problems. you can defend your definition, but i think its hard to dispute that its non-standard.
i'm a little more concerned with part 3 of your definition, because i think that's what really gets to the root of what people mean when they say "even good people are easy to corrupt and manipulate into evil". a person can fully know everything it means to be good, and can try very hard to live up to the high standard you've described. but the whole point is that many people are skeptical that *any* such person is truly uncorruptable. even the best, wisest, most moral person imaginable is still human, and given the right set of circumstances may not be strong enough to hold to those principles. you even admit that "very few people are good in any meaningful sense". are you confident that there are *any* such people? and if not, then maybe that's not the most useful definition of good. and its certainly not the definition used by the people you're arguing with.
i can appreciate why you might think i'm playing a semantic game with my definition of "good person", but i'm not, and here's why:
i consider a necessary but not entirely sufficient condition for being a good person is acting out of philosophical purity, rather than mere obedience to social consensus. why? isn't this an arbitrary restraint? not really.
take a modern person, who is by all normal judgments a "good person", and send them back in time to a place where unconscionable wrongs like colonialism or slavery were commonplace. ask yourself, based on your knowledge of this person's character and predispositions, "how will they act, knowing that their actions will be socially accepted or even sanctioned?"
the answer for most normal people is that they would have no issue with slavery if not for the fact that societies have learned of its immorality as a practice, and this is impressed upon all of us. it is no thanks to the normal person that this is true, but rather, it is attributable to a small percentage of people who achieved moral excellence and worked to make it recognised.
empathy is weak and paltry as a defence against immorality. it is so easily subverted and applied selectively that it is insufficient- one must first answer the substantial questions as to what that empathy indicates ethically- is my empathy appropriate in this situation? are there other logically identical situations or persons that *don't* trigger my empathy? should they?
i should make a distinction between being a moral agent and being a moral patient; the former is restricted to those with the minimum of intelligence required to reason from ethical principles, whereas the latter group is not. we may have duties to infants, psychopaths and dogs, but they lack the faculties that, if present, would render them similarly indebted to us.
as to concerns about whether such a standard is so high that no human has ever reached it, i can offer counterexamples of people that certainly have. thích quảng đức self-immolated in protest of the vietnam war, an ethical declaration made at the cost of his life. zell kravinsky has donated his kidney and raised millions through smart investments, all of which he donated to effective charities. philosophers like bentham and mill have created the foundation for egalitarian political thought, and people such as martin luther king jr have tirelessly and effectively promoted their conception of the good in the face of public apathy, contempt and anger.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
power (12)
absolute power (7)
Indicators:
you're using a very narrow definition of "absolute power", and i'd argue even "power";
Negotiations:
on the surface, a teacher has some power over her class, but when you get right down to it, the teacher has little to no actual power over her students. what can they actually do to enforce any rules, other than what amounts to altering the length of time the student spends with the class, or kicking the responsibility up to the higher levels? all in all, they don't have much power at all.
and parents? they can take things away from their kids, but ultimately the only enforcement power they have is to get the police involved, or greater physical strength to prevent their kid from simply taking back what they want by force. if the parents use any force to enforce their "power", then child abuse, cps, etc. so, no real power there either.
now, let's look at some people with actual power: the police. how often have we been hearing of police overstepping their bounds/abusing their power? and how much of that do you think is just because it was *too extreme* to cover up, and indicates a ton of other shadyness going on that most people don't know about? they have power, true power, over life and death, with minimal (though this is changing) power.
i think teacher's have more power than that. considering teacher's can issue detentions, and have a huge say in a student's final grade, i would say they have more than just a little power.
even parents. they can take literally everything away from their children. they can ground them, meaning that the child is not able to do anything for an arbitrary amount of time. force them to do an unrealistic amount of chores, they set all the rules in the house. i'd say this is a pretty big example of power.
i think even your police example agrees with my post. sure, i agree with you that many police officers overstep their bounds and abuse their power. it may very well even be the majority of officers. however, the fact that there are police officers out there who don't abuse their power strengthens my point, because if the power corrupted, there would not be officers that don't abuse their power.
detention is no where close to taking a person's life away
parents have a lot of power, in my opinion. not only can they use any form of discipline they see fit, up to and including physical violence, but they can utilize mental and emotional violence as well (you're stupid, you're a terrible son/daughter, no one will love you, i'm going to lock you in this dark, cramped etc).
but the real kicker is that these parents can refuse to financially support or shelter their child - all a parent has to do is walk away and there is nothing the child can do to stop him or her. there isn't even much a court of law can do, if the parent is fairly determined and leaves the country/changes his name/any of a dozen other things. children are abandoned all the time - that's when they go to state institutions, orphanages, etc.
so really, a parent has a near-absolute amount of power over their child's life. whether they can use this power effectively, well, that's a different story. not a lot of parents really threaten to abandon their children if they're too rebellious, for example.
[sta-cite]>considering teacher's can issue detentions
[end-cite]altering the time they have to stay in the class
[sta-cite]>and have a huge say in a student's final grade
[end-cite]grades don't particularly matter, in the grand scheme of things, beyond being an indicator of how much work a student was willing to put in. the only thing it does influence is if the grade is failing and the student has to, well, spend more time in the class.
[sta-cite]>they can take literally everything away from their children. they can ground them, meaning that the child is not able to do anything for an arbitrary amount of time.
[end-cite]okay, sure, but they can't actually enforce that. they can lock the kids in until the kids learn to pick locks, they can take stuff away until the kid doesn't care about its stuff, and parents are, typically, ineffective at stopping a child from being rebellious.
[sta-cite]> grades don't particularly matter, in the grand scheme of things, beyond being an indicator of how much work a student was willing to put in. the only thing it does influence is if the grade is failing and the student has to, well, spend more time in the class.
[end-cite]it makes a big difference for uni applications.
and that particular threat is only viable if you particularly care about which university you go to, or don't go to a community college for the first 2 years of schooling (which a lot of people do anyway since that's way less expensive), or indeed even care about post-secondary education at all.
pretty much everyone that cares about learning at school cares about making a decent mark. even if you don't care about university/trade schools, students get directly punished by their parents for receiving poor marks.
uh... no, i never did in high school. i didn't care about grades because they actively got in the way of my learning. math teachers who assigned 50+ homework problems a night, when i had better things to be doing with my time, and i understood the math already. i graduated with something like a 2.0, went to community college and aced my classes, transferred to a 4 year, got my bs, got a job i actually enjoy...
and yeah, my parents totally *tried* to punish me for my bad marks, i just didn't actually listen to them, snuck out, etc. they made my life slightly more *difficult* at the time, but that was hardly power.
they've changed educational doctrine since you were in school. they abandoned mass math drills, repetitive composition writing, and spelling testing. mandatory routine hw seems to be the exception rather than the rule. if a student shows up, does the mandatory assignments, studies the material on the tests, and works hard on the projects, they do well.
based on your vernacular, it sounds like you're in the uk? as far as i can tell, the us isn't getting much better in that regard. it's certainly location-specific, at any rate. but we digress; regardless of this, the ability to give out bad grades is hardly absolute power.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
acceptable
Indicators:
but then again, i am not clear what you mean by "acceptable" - in a legal sense? moral? social? biological?
Negotiations:
from my experience, many societies (esp. those of north america and western europe) find the practice of pet eating to be morally reprehensible.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
created
Indicators:
i believe you mean domesticated, the human race did not invent dogs or cats.
Negotiations:
exactly. we created dogs and cats by selectively breeding the traits we wanted. one of the criteria was companionship. that's why it's so particularly cruel to eat them.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
patriotism (4)
Indicators:
well what is patriotism then ?!
Negotiations:
love of country. love of one thing doesn't imply or lead to hatred of another. nor does it require that you be vocal about it.
ok. i'm from eastern europe, so my view is clearly biased here, because the concept of "love of country" seems unnatural to me.
fair enough, but that's the [dictionary definition](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriotism) of patriotism. thinking it's weird is different than thinking it leads to negative feelings.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
art (3)
work of art
Indicators:
by your definition, isn't everything a work of art?
Negotiations:
if someone paints a bunch of splats, then it's just a bunch of splats. then they call it art, and suddenly that makes it important, and the fact that it makes you question whether or not it actually is art becomes the art.
but doesn't that mean i can do it with anything?
i drink out of the same coffee cup every day. it has a stain in the bottom. it's not art, and i probably couldn't sell it because it's ruined.
however, if i call it art, does that suddenly make it so? is it suddenly worth lots of money?
can i do that with all my possessions and sell them off, proclaiming them to be art?
yes, i believe you are correct.
that is how i see art. anything can be art - any act, object, or abstract concept. if someone proclaims it is art then it is.
you could attempt to sell off your possessions, claiming them to be art - but it would depend on subjective valuation on the viewer/purchaser if they were worth anything. this is, sometimes, how pieces make it into museums. the artist has their own intentions/meaning for the piece, then separate but sometimes dependent on that the original purchaser/viewer ascribes their own personal meaning/value. then because they place it in a gallery or museum, that can add value to some other viewers, if that is what they value. others will value it based on how it makes them feel, separate from the intent of the artist or the location/socially ascribed value of the piece, and others will not value it at all.
art is entirely subjective, that is the point. what is art is subjective, what is good art is subjective, and what is valuable is subjective.
someone pays for the art, you can sell whatever you made and say it is art, but someone has to want to buy it first
how do you define "art"?
as i said in another reply:
> i define art as something that makes me feel something beyond what the object is.
>
> if someone painted a piece made of random splats entirely out of blood, i would be thinking about the blood, and the violence needed to get the blood.
> but paint randomly put on a canvas doesn't make me question anything like that. it's something a tiny child does, and has no greater meaning to anyone but the artist than something a toddler would make.
so you think art is an thing that someway pay a lot for, that makes you think of something other than the object?
it's not something that *needs* to be worth lots of money.
i was asking why certain pieces, which are no different from everyday items (toddler's paintings, cups, urinals, etc) *are* worth lots of money and are considered art.
they are worth lots of money because people will pay lots of money for those objects.
but i consider "art" something different than the objects.
[sta-cite]>by your definition, isn't everything a work of art?
[end-cite]well, not until someone calls it art.
>if someone paints a bunch of splats, then it's just a bunch of splats. then they call it art, and suddenly that makes it important, and the fact that it makes you question whether or not it actually is art becomes the art.
but doesn't that mean i can do it with anything?
i drink out of the same coffee cup every day. it has a stain in the bottom. it's not art, and i probably couldn't sell it because it's ruined.
however, if i call it art, does that suddenly make it so? is it suddenly worth lots of money?
can i do that with all my possessions and sell them off, proclaiming them to be art?
sure, call it "i fucking hate modern art" and sell your stuff on ebay. people sometimes do weird shit and call it art, give it a shot.
they don't always make money, of course. i don't know why you think art makes something suddenly worth a lot of money, ask an artist how that is working out for them sometime.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
follow through
Indicators:
i don't even understand how my goals don't "follow through." could you explain what you mean by that?
Negotiations:
what is a law that doesn't have a punishment?
all a law is nothing more than an written down threat; and by definition making drugs illegal you are threatening addicts.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
have your back
Indicators:
what do you mean not always have your back? like choose the bf over you basically?
Negotiations:
exactly. a guy wouldn't date a girl who didn't consider *him* #1. she'll put you aside fast.
ya this is pretty annoying.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
waffles (10)
waffle (2)
Indicators:
well which definition are we supposed to go by according to your view? the dictionary definition mentions nothing about waffles being fluffy on the inside or being at least double the height of a pancake, yet your definition mentions bother of these things. so, which definition of a waffle should we be going by?
Negotiations:
let us look at the merriam-webster waffle definition.
1waf·fle \ˈwä-fəl, ˈwȯ-\ noun :a crisp cake of batter baked in a waffle iron
[sta-cite]> true waffles are crisp on the outside and fluffy on the inside, and at least double the height of a pancake.
[end-cite]
true, the pancake height was my own personal addition for dramatic effect, but that doesn't take away from the fact that waffle house waffles are not crisp, and therefore do not fit the definition.
your personal opinion has no affect on a business though. they serve what meets the dictionary (and therefore societal) definition of a waffle.
so should i go by the dictionary definition of a waffle or your personal definition? if crispness is the sole determining factor then it seems like waffle house may simply undercook their waffles, not that they aren't waffles at all.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
trap (14)
edm (3)
electronic music
Indicators:
we can't really understand what you define as "trap" or "good edm/electronic" unless you provide at least an example of both.
Negotiations:
most of the trap that comes out/played in a *edm* set is absolute shit (diplo kinda shit). there are a lot of lesser known trap/future artists that put out a lot of good stuff on soundcloud thats far better/more moving than popular edm. edm is exceptionally repetitive these days... either way most of the depends on what you define as trap.
i meant edm to be electronic music broadly conceived, so i apologize if my language was vague.
you're right about examples. i'll do some digging and see if i can post some. my exposure to trap is broader than martin garrix, i assure you.
trap didn't originate within edm - that came about in 2011/12. trap is a hip-hop sub-genre - you need to do some reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/trap_(music)
See entire sequence
Triggers:
effective
Indicators:
you'll have to define "effective" for me and give me a specific example or two, but i suspect that your question misses the point.
Negotiations:
many forms of abuse, manipulation, and deception might be described as "effective," depending on what your goal is and whether or not you're a psychopath.
effective, as in, conducive towards achieving a desired result. i'll use two examples just for clarity: "be assertive" as the positive one, and "treat women like children" as the negative.
that doesn't sound like a very effective way to form the basis of a healthy and fulfilling relationship with another human being.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
nihilist
Indicators:
i have never classified myself as a nihilist, as i honestly must plead ignorance to the true meaning of the term.
Negotiations:
a nihilist is someone who believes that nothing is material and nothing matters. pretty close to your view i guess
See entire sequence
Triggers:
vegetables
Indicators:
vegetable is a culinary term, not a botanical term. it is defined as any plant matter eaten as part of a dinner or lunch as part of the primary dish or appetizer. thus tubers are vegetables.
Negotiations:
under that definition pasta would be a vegetable which i don't think anyone would agree with.
also fruit is a vegetable, if you have fruit for lunch..
See entire sequence
Triggers:
sports (4)
sport
Indicators:
the definition of sport that i have grown up with isn't just the competitive aspect, but the physical aspect too.
Negotiations:
is scrabble a sport then?!
and plenty of areas in atheletics involve overcoming obstacles, yet it is still a sport.
esports, and bar games, should still be refered to as games, or competitive games. i don't think that the fact that they are played competitively is enough to give them a new definition, in the same way that rock paper scissors isn't a sport!
yes, scrabble is a sport. one of the definitions of sports per merriam webster:
[sta-cite]>a source of diversion; recreation
[end-cite]that covers scrabble, and a whole let more.
just because an activity isn't physical in nature doesn't mean it isn't a sport.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
viewership
Indicators:
for clarification, do you mean "viewership" as in simply "view" (loading them on the page) or do you mean that as clicks?
Negotiations:
i mean unique viewers viewing whatever a particular website has to offer.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
state's constitution and policies
Indicators:
is there a chance you could elaborate on what you mean by "the state's constitution and policies"?
Negotiations:
in a (theoretical) communist state everybody would have equal access to resources, whereas in a capitalist state there is a divide between rich and poor. the choice of capitalism is better for the citizenry as a whole, however some of the citizenry are inevitably born into poverty. therefore, some citizens are disadvantaged as a result of the state implementing policies which support capitalism over communism. poverty, with it's obvious disadvantages, is therefore a result of state policy, and should be compensated for as much as possible by the state. you could make similar comparisons with anarchy, feudalism, etc.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
sneaky censor
Indicators:
i am not entirely sure what you meant by sneaky censor,
Negotiations:
i mean that if it weren't *you* who deprived you of the information, but rather were some sort of censor hired by the cia or yale in order to ban/hinder/discredit or otherwise eliminate research that might contribute to racism, and who was so adept that her efforts were unknown to you, that such a person could get rid of these studies' effects on you, but that you cannot do that to yourself.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
works
Indicators:
what is your definition of "working"?
Negotiations:
the ankle monitors lower recidivism, i call that working.
you made the case that it was working, so i think you should be responsible for coming up with this determination.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
success
Indicators:
what do you mean by "success"? reproducing as much as possible?
Negotiations:
because that's the biological definition. this is evidently a terrible definition. it is in no way moral to force people to have children, just for the "success of the species".
a better definition is "success" means reducing pain and increasing happiness. technology throughout the ages has done this for us, and we commonly regard technological advances as a "success". automation saves us the pain of hard labour and gives us free time for the pleasures of philosophy and reading and so on.
what i'm proposing would be the final step of technology. removing all suffering. with everyone plugged into the machine, everyone would experience the maximum happiness possible. suffering would be a thing of the past.
reproducing as much as possible doesn't lead to success necessarily. that's merely one tactic species use to achieve success.
"success" means exactly what evolution says it means. survival over the long term with adaptability to varying environmental conditions. long term genetic prevalence.
btw, your "experience machine" had better account somehow for reproduction and successful raising of progeny, because otherwise your lovely happiness will last exactly 1 generation.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
mental illness (2)
mental illnesses
Indicators:
just curious, and not just for op to answer, but when people talk about "mental illness" with respect to guns, what does that mean? does that mean schizophrenics? people with ptsd? people who are bipolar? people who saw a counselor because they were sad?
Negotiations:
typically a background check currently looks for involuntary commitment. so if you were committed (usually takes a court order) it's because you were a threat to others or yourself.
just having ptsd or depression or even mild schizophrenia wouldn't necessarily be barred, but we may have to err on the side of caution.
for instance, i have fairly serious depression, and minor ocd. i've never been suicidal, and my ocd is minor enough that things don't set me off. i'd anticipate zero resistance if i were to try and buy another gun under the proposed regulations.
i realize that's the current law now, but i feel like there are people who are trying to take gun rights away from anyone who visited a metal health professional or was prescribed an antidepressant.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
overrated (12)
Indicators:
i don't think your definition of overrated is correct.
Negotiations:
let me give you an example of a case where it's easy to determine whether something is underrated or overrated.
at the beginning of each sporting event season, various publications rank each team from first to last based on how well they think they'll do. at the end of the year, you can look at the final standings and see which teams were overrated and which were underrated. a team that was predicted to come in 3rd but actually came in 10th was overrated. in other words, overrating is only relevant based on future performance. you argue that whatever ranking is given now is incorrect based on what results will say in the future. do you agree with this definition, at least for sports team rankings?
now, things get muddier when you don't have a clear ranking system. there's no final results for which movies or bands are best, instead what we have is a bunch of rating systems that change over time. so in these cases, i would take overrated to mean, "this band is ranked highly in x system now, but in 20 years, it will be ranked much lower." x can mean popular opinion polls, or rolling stones top lists or whatever you choose. saying the beatles are overrated means that while they consistently appear at the top of "best bands" lists in various media, in the future they will drop in popularity relative to other bands. you are making a prediction about the future.
while i'm sure people do use overrated to mean, "everyone thinks this is good but i don't" that's not a good use for this word. the word has "rate" in it which means that it only makes sense in the context of a rating scheme.
[sta-cite]>while i'm sure people do use overrated to mean, "everyone thinks this is good but i don't" that's not a good use for this word. the word has "rate" in it which means that it only makes sense in the context of a rating scheme.
[end-cite]this is exactly the instance of "overrated" that i am speaking out against, so we are in agreement. however, i never considered the implication of the "rating" aspect, so i am going to give you a ∆. i never denied there were specific cases where "overrated" would be appropriate, but you suggested one that i hadn't thought of.
[sta-cite]>this is exactly the instance of "overrated" that i am speaking out against, so we are in agreement.
[end-cite]i understand, but i think even in this case, the word has the implication that "sometime in the future everyone will realize that this is not as good relative to these other things." this is different than just saying, i don't like it.
of course, someone should have to *defend* why something is overrated.
if overrated is a prediction: "x is overrated means x will decline in popularity faster than things that enjoy a similar level of popularity right now" then i'm going to guess that almost no one uses the word that way. if they did then i could say "oh interesting, lets make a bet on whether x is overrated or not". however, i think most people would not take kindly to that.
but i think that's precisely what people mean. they essentially mean that other things that are rated lower are actually better. and in my opinion there's the implicit notion that after enough time has passed, most people will realize this.
actually better? as in there is an objective aesthetic standard that humans eventually converge on? then i oppose it even more.
only rarely is an objective standard implied. this is usually when there's some rating system being used. for example, "they voted *that* the best song ever? that song is so overrated"
usually, it's just referring to where it fits in public opinion. "breaking bad is overrated" means that in a few years when people talk about the best tv shows of this era, breaking bad will be considered worse than some other shows that maybe aren't considered so great now.
[sta-cite]>what i mean is, generally when people say something is "overrated," they mean, "this is critically acclaimed or appreciated by a huge number of people, but i don't like it. therefore, i don't understand why so many people like it, or i do not think it deserves the praise it gets."
[end-cite]people who are not professional critics can certainly have valid criticisms about film that are not dependent on their enjoyment. i understand and agree with the sentiment that one should examine art more critically than simply "like" and "dislike". however, basing judgement purely on the consensus of professional thought doesn't encourage this, it merely appeals to authority. critics are not always in agreement, the opinion on artwork changes over time: one could certainly find a current critic's darling overrated, and consensus may agree with me them in a decade.
for example, john updike was widely celebrated as great novelist during his lifetime, yet more recent critics have found him to be [lacking](http://www.themillions.com/2013/10/metronomic-virtuosity-on-the-collected-stories-of-john-updike.html). one reading him during his heyday could have found the same issues as current critics do, and yet they would (according to your metric) be unjustified in their judgement until enough critics shared the same viewpoint.
one of the major issues that the modern establishment has with updike is his narcissistic, misogynist viewpoint and yet you'll note the linked article only quotes male critics from any generation. i don't believe one needs to be a woman to note this issues in his writing, however, it does speak to another point: critics are not a perfect representation of the populous. the critical establishment has been very white, male, and upper-class for a long time, and celebrated and promoted authors of a similar mindset. film critics skew western. while this doesn't invalidate their opinions, it means the critical consensus is often based on the perspectives of a small-subset of the the population. thus novelists artists like updike are often hailed as great american novelists, when their perspective is as narrow and singularly focused as the authors who get labeled as great "african-american novelists" or "women authors", and so forth. examining the perspective of the critics themselves is as important as examining their views.
i think i can get behind "overrated" in a critical context but not in a "some guy complaining online" context, which may be a difficult view to change, since i think most people here agree with me. your point is well taken, of course critics can be wrong.
a good film criticism example is birth of a nation, which most people associate with racism and the origin of the kkk, and it is obviously a distasteful and offensive film by today's standards. while it still holds a lofty place in film history, it has become more and more taboo i think to praise it as the historic work that it is; it popularized a huge number of cinematic conventions and devices. it did not invent those devices, but *due to the controversy* of its content even at the time, resulting in its immense popularity (it was the most profitable film of all time for two decades) it lead to them being more widely adopted. it's also, really, a very well-made movie in spite of everything. you could definitely argue that it's not as good as people make it out to be because of its content, but that's not why it's considered "great."
but i think the controversy of birth of a nation is well-documented and has always been inextricable from discussions of the film. with someone like john updike, where critical consensus on the **quality** of his work has changed, as opposed to the historical influence, we could argue against the authority of critics. i guess i'm more saying that it is perfectly alright to think john updike is a horrible, misogynist writer, but if some aspect of his style was incredibly influential that is not easy to deny. if someone said, "i think birth of a nation is overrated because it is not an entertaining film because it is racist" you are missing the point of why it is rated highly.
however there is more to criticism than merely charting influence; there is qualitative greatness that is not definitive, and that is what is sometimes in dispute when we say things are "overrated." ∆.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
inductive reasoning
Indicators:
...it isn't, though? inductive reasoning is simply adding together premises to form a conclusion. one could make predictions using inductive reasoning, given that one of those premises is the assumption that any patterns you notice will continue, but that's not necessarily the definition of inductive reasoning.
Negotiations:
edit: an appeal to authority could be inductive reasoning, sure: "x says that a is good, and x must be right. therefore, a is good." it's just not valid reasoning, just like with all logical fallacies.
hmm; you're right - but i don't know if there is a difference between what kind of pattern you are observing.
are some kinds of patterns superior? it may be that they are.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
moral right
Indicators:
could you please explain what you mean by moral right?
Negotiations:
thousands of jews lived in israel since the original jewish nation was sent into the diaspora of 70 ad. the creation of the state in 1948 was not the start of the jewish nation, but the return of the jewish nation to their land. in that time, no other country has ever laid claim to it in a nationalist sense. it's only once the jewish nation returned home that suddenly there is interest in it.
there's been an unbroken jewish presence in that land for 3000 years. thats a significant moral right, if you ask me.
this isn't my favorite example, but wwii illustrates why the nation of israel and the jewish people needs its own land. the historical home of the jewish people (the kingdom of judea and israel) is in jerusalem, safed, hebron, beersheva and the surrounding area. many of the palestians have jewish roots 1000's of years in the past ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/palestinian_people#cite_note-23 ). there is strong archeological evidence for the continued inhabitance of the land by jews and the continued desire to return after the exile. it is their home by birthright as much as the palestinians some of whom were jews before conversion.
i don't feel that you can say that it is as much their home by birthright (because they have historical ties to it 1000 years in the past) as it is the palestinians who were born there, whose ancestors were born there for the last several hundred years.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
human things
person (4)
Indicators:
"human being" and "person" are very distinct concepts.
Negotiations:
the term "human being" usually refers to a genetically unique organism of human origin.
a fetus is, certainly, a human being (just one in the very early stages of development). a skin cell is not a human being (if you don't believe me, please refer back to your high school biology textbook). a sex cell is not a human being, though the zygote that is created upon the merging of two sex cells is a human being.
shifting the argument from "it is wrong to kill a human being" to "it is wrong to kill a person" is an important difference and you ought to note the change and define your concept of personhood and why you think your definition correct and useful.
you have unfortunately begged the question by asserting that a fetus is a human being. it is human, no doubt, but that it is a human being is much more debatable.
this is the anti-abortionist predicament: either they agree that the fetus is merely a cluster of human cells, in which case it probably doesn't have rights, or they assert that the fetus is a human being, in which case they beg the question. it seems better to just back off from the "human / human being" line of argument altogether.
i have not begged the question. i nowhere agreed that the moral rule was "it is wrong to kill human beings"; i merely want to point out that "human beings" and "persons" are distinct concepts and should not be used interchangeably as you have done.
and if you are using "human beings" and "persons" to refer to the same thing i think you should have a word that can differentiate between a zygote and a skin cell since they are, biologically, very different.
[sta-cite]> i have not begged the question. i nowhere agreed that the moral rule was "it is wrong to kill human beings"; i merely want to point out that "human beings" and "persons" are distinct concepts and should not be used interchangeably as you have done.
[end-cite]is that true? what is an example of a human being that is not a person?
[sta-cite]>is that true? what is an example of a human being that is not a person?
[end-cite]i usually see pro-choice advocates using a *fetus* as an example of just that, but defining terms is always a problem in these kinds of discussions.
my definition of "human being", as above, is **a genetically unique organism of human origin**. it's an easy concept with good scientific backing.
my definition of "person" is a conscious being that knows itself and knows of its own existence. there are a *lot* of different definitions of "person" used in these kinds of debates.
feel free to substitute in your own definitions as you please; i'm happy to use your terms.
really, the moral question that is key is "what sorts of things are wrong to kill?"
*that* is not a trivial question. what makes killing wrong? what sorts of characteristics does a thing need to have before we shy away from killing it? is consciousness necessary?
this is where it's important for us to know what you mean by "person", "human", "human being", "human thing", etc and it frustrated me that you used those terms, to my mind, interchangeably.
of course, you've been perfectly cordial so far and you used "begging the question" in the logically correct sense and i thank you from the bottom of my heart for that. :)
See entire sequence
Triggers:
marginal humans (2)
Indicators:
i am not sure what you mean by marginal humans. are you referring to those with mental deficiencies? severe brain damage?
Negotiations:
marginal humans are those who have a quality of life lower than normal humans and similar to that of animals.
for more see [vivisection, morals and medicine](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc1059351/)
See entire sequence
Triggers:
must
Indicators:
assuming that this is true, the word "must" doesn't really play into it.
i guess i don't know what you mean by "must". what are the properties of this obligation?
Negotiations:
as i said in another response, "must", as in..."are compelled and incentivized, per the business model and fiduciary duty, to maximize shareholder value, whatever it takes."
well, yeah.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
must
Indicators:
by "must" do you mean legally?
because that's simply not true. a contract provision that requires illegal acts is unenforceable. the laws of the state/country trump contract law any day. can you point to a recent case in which people were successfully sued for failing to break the law?
do you mean ethically "must"?
that would necessitate a situation where fiduciary duty is elevated beyond all other ethical duties. i'd be interested to see an argument for that, and i'd be really impressed with an argument that everyone must subscribe to an ethical system where that's true.
if you mean "will tend to" then sure, but that's very different from the strong wording of your op.
Negotiations:
***must***, as in "according to the business model, are *incentivized* and *compelled* to break the law, when the cost/benefit analysis shows it to maximize shareholder value".
incentivized? clearly. compelled? they aren't forced to act in that way.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
selfish (3)
selfishness
Indicators:
so, what is selfishness?
Negotiations:
according to merriam-webster, being selfish means:
[sta-cite]> having or showing concern only for yourself, and not for the needs of other people
[end-cite]the decision not to have children in order to lead a more fulfilling life is fundamentally selfish because it is a decision based on concern for your own life.
having children, on the other hand, means a commitment to being tied to another person for, at minimum, 18 years. this means that you are essentially sacrificing your own freedom to accommodate another person. obviously in some cases people who have children do so for selfish reasons, but it is still less selfish because it involves that commitment to raise a child and defer to their needs.
now, in this case being selfish isn't inherently bad. it is selfish though, because it is a decision made out of concern for yourself.
[sta-cite]> having or showing concern only for yourself, and not for the needs of other people
[end-cite]i don't think there's a single person in the world who's need it is for you to have children (apart from maybe some parents that have no other ways of getting grandschildren that also really want them). so i'd argue that you actually are taking every single person's needs in account.
just because your actions don't harm anyone else doesn't mean you have considered their needs. when i decide not to eat a sandwich, that is selfish, as in focused entirely on myself. obviously no one else needed me to have that sandwich, but that doesn't mean i considered their needs before making that choice.
i don't think that's what selfish means, including according to the stated definition.
well grammatically, someone else's needs do not need to exist in order to *not* care for them. that is just grammatically a fact.
i don't care about unicorns. i don't care about leprechauns. i don't care about the feelings of unborn babies.
all these are grammatically and logically correct.
i think you skipped the second half of your definition. that's an "and", so unless your action is ignoring the needs of someone else, your definition doesn't apply. when it comes to having kids, there is no other person in all of existence whose needs are being ignored, so the word doesn't apply.
well, it doesn't actually say "ignoring the needs of others", it says "not showing concern for the needs of others". the difference is that "ignoring" means those needs exist.
if i was the only person on earth, i couldn't be ignoring anyone. i could, however, not show concern. in fact *of course* i wouldn't show concern for others, since there would be no other people.
essentially, the selfishness doesn't have to be active, as in actively choosing to focus on yourself; it can be passive, as in you focus on yourself because there is no reason to focus on others.
the distinction you're trying to draw between those two phrasings doesn't really work, because neither one makes sense in the absence of any "other's" needs. if you were the only person on earth, it wouldn't make any sense to say you "don't care about the needs of others". that sentence only makes any sense to say if there are such needs for you to "not care" about. it makes as much sense as saying "john doesn't care about the feelings of leprechauns"...it refers to nothing, and so saying it is incoherent.
the real problem here is that you're ignoring the function that the word "selfish" has in our language. when someone is accused of being selfish, it *always* means exactly what the definition says: they are privileging their own concerns over those of others, thereby putting others at some sort of disadvantage. there is literally no other usage of the term.
[sta-cite]> it makes as much sense as saying "john doesn't care about the feelings of leprechauns"...it refers to nothing, and so saying it is incoherent.
[end-cite]that is not incoherent, it is both grammatically and logically correct. the only reason it sounds weird is because in everyday language there is not often a need for people to use the word in reference to non-existent things.
[sta-cite]> the real problem here is that you're ignoring the function that the word "selfish" has in our language.
[end-cite]a word can have different meanings in different contexts, and simply because it is often used in reference to privileging one's self over others, doesn't mean it cannot be used when there are no "others".
[sta-cite]> there is literally no other usage of the term.
[end-cite]"my tolerance of golfers is utterly selfish."
"for purely selfish reasons, of course, i couldn't wait for this smoking ban to go ahead."
"i joined them for selfish reasons"
> when someone is accused of being selfish, it always means exactly what the definition says: they are privileging their own concerns over those of others, thereby putting others at some sort of disadvantage.
lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
see, you are inferring this into the definition, nowhere is it specifically stated. let me provide you with more definitions, and you will notice that none of them *explicitly* mention "putting someone else at a disadvantage.
[sta-cite]> "lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure."
[end-cite][sta-cite]>"devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others."
[end-cite][sta-cite]>"concerned chiefly or only with oneself"
[end-cite]i understand how the word is usually used. however, the professionals who spend their entire lives analyzing these things and coming together to form the oxford, merriam-webster, or other dictionaries formulated the definitions in this way for a reason.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
semantics (2)
Indicators:
i think you might be confused about the meaning of the word "semantics".
Negotiations:
as a field it is indeed about meaning in general, but used in context, it invokes these meanings.
merriam-webster.com
[sta-cite]>the meanings of words and phrases in a particular context
[end-cite]dictionary.com
[sta-cite]>the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: let's not argue about semantics.
[end-cite]thefreedictionary.com
[sta-cite]>the meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: we're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.
[end-cite]
this use of the word semantics isn't against the meaning of the word, it's literally the dictionary example of one of the uses of the word. and in context there's no confusing it with a reference to the broader field of semantics.
you can maybe make an argument that it would be a bad word to choose when talking to "you" since you seem to have some confusions about it, but the majority of people have no confusion over its use.
as i've said in other places, it's in the specific context of saying "that's just semantics" dismissively that i take issue with. i'm not denying that there are plenty of contexts where this or similar phrases are appropriate. i gave somebody a delta specifically for pointing out one such example.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
free market (21)
Indicators:
define free market.
your using examples from today and in the food, drug and diamond industries no less, which bother me.
the farms restrictions and subsidies, drug and gene patents, and african diamond warlords are not my examples for free makrets.
Negotiations:
okay, now to go back to something i've already said, i think this is getting back into no-true-scotsman territory.
one of my criticisms of the free market is that it inevitably leads an unfree market. groups, through free market tactics gain a large amount of economic wealth and therefore political power and then use that power to influence the market in their favor.
this is one of the problems with the free market that i think the free market can't solve, unregulated markets historically lead to regulated markets with regulatory policies that favor specific groups over others. that's one of my criticisms.
saying that once this happens "it's no longer a free market then" not only fails to address my criticism, but as i've said elsewhere, renders the free market as a theoretical construct that is permanently safe from criticism.
what i mean by this, is that if the free market becomes corrupted by a free market actor (like a private corporation) that's not an invalidation of my criticism, but *evidence of it*.
in other words, the free market is inherently self-defeating and always moves towards a lack of freedom in the favor of particular groups.
it would only be no true scotsmen if i rejected the freest industries(like the tech industry); and you still havn't defined what you mean by free market, meaning i can't show how these industry have little to nothing to do with the free market or that your definition is flawed.(or be proven wrong, but....)
is it the free market that imposes these restrictions? i would argue the state is a cancer in society and when its ready to grow the capitalists in a good position, move themselves to avoid its harm, not that they cause it to grow. but thats a chicken or egg problem.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
free market (6)
Indicators:
so am i to understand that when you are talking about the "free market" you are talking about when the private interests controlling a government are corporations rather than individuals?
Negotiations:
the free market is when the government is not involved.
if so, i would point out that most artificial scarcity is not at the behest of corporations. sure, corporation/government collusion causes some harm in terms of the diamond cartel. but noncorporate government-induced artificial scarcity takes the form of the holodomor or zimbabwe's engineered famine. so even with this weird definiton of the "free market", the free market causes ~0% of the problem of artificial scarcity while non-market forces cause the other ~100%.
okay so let's step back into my way way back machine before policies beneficial to individual groups were instituted at a state level. what you have at that point is the full free market. now, through the operations of this free market, certain groups through free market principles become wealthier and more powerful than other groups. this is to be expected in the free market.
then what happens is these groups use that power and authority, to influence state policy to be more favorable to them, thereby curtailing the free market.
so here's the train of logic - in the free market certain groups through shrewd business and strong practices outpace other groups -[sta-cite]> this makes those groups more powerful economically and therefore more powerful politically -> these groups then use that economic power and therefore political power to encourage policies favorable to them and not others -> the free market is quashed.
[end-cite]a condensed form of the argument is - free market -[sta-cite]> unfree market.
[end-cite]my position is that the free market, by itself is incapable of solving for that. the free market is internally self-destructive and leads to an unfree market, and the free market has no internal ability to correct for that.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
work (3)
Indicators:
what is work?
Negotiations:
you say washing your car and fixing your car or painting are work.
/r/autodetailing for all of us car detailing enthusiasts
/r/cartalk for those of us interested in the workings of cars
/r/painting for those who like to paint.
you want to turn everyones hobbies into a job? what are your hobbies? would you be satisfied if it were *illegal* to do them, and in turn you actually had to pay someone for these services? sorry, can't wash my own dishes, gotta have a maid. sorry, can't cook dinner, gotta have a chef?
∆ the line between hobbies and work is not clear. if a particular service is prohibited there may be a process for a hobbiest exemption.
work or hobbies that could damage the environment would still need licensing and insurance to minimize this damage.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
introvert
Indicators:
that's the definition of *introversion*. the same source, merriam webster, defines an *introvert* as "a shy person : a quiet person who does not find it easy to talk to other people."
Negotiations:
that's obviously not the context that op is talking about since he brought up quiet. in the context of the discussion, it is imperative to differentiate between shyness/social anxiety and introversion
it's okay to be wrong sometimes.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
oral tradition of mythology
Indicators:
can i ask what you mean by 'the oral tradition of mythology'? because you seem to just be talking about religion. mythology and oral traditions are not necessarily religious.
Negotiations:
well; i grew up in a hindu background.
most of the tales i've heard have been passed down orally, and it was lots of fun for me to listen to them.
i guess you are right - oral traditions need not be religious. folktales, etc. are an example of those that i'd forgotten.
so a ∆ for reminding me about that.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
science (4)
sciences
Indicators:
i think that the center of you argument is your opinion on what science is, and this does not agree with the accepted definition of what a science is.
Negotiations:
philosophy is a science. mathematics is a science. engineering is an application of physical and chemical sciences. software engineering is an application of computer science.
from a different angle; how is the unsolvability in the general case of the halting problem, and its proof not science?
i guess i would need to know how you're defining science then. in my mind, science is defined by empirical knowledge gained through some kind of experimentation. what alternate definition do you propose?
"science" has had different definitions throughout the history of the word. originally, it meant "knowledge" (from the latin "scientia").
more recently, the common definition has shifted to refer to the *acquisition* of knowledge, rather than to the knowledge itself. however, you still encounter the older definition when people say things like, "it's more an art than a science" (i.e., it is achieved through intuition, not through knowledge).
in addition to that change in definition, the word has become increasingly exclusive and nuanced in recent decades. by strictest modern usage, it refers to fields of study that are built upon empirical observation and the scientific method. but you still see older definitions of the word in terms like "library science" and "political science". "computer science" appears to be an offshoot of this.
i think you have this reversed. science is a branch of philosophy, as is mathematics.
science was born from philosophy, but since then science has become much broader, and philosophy more specialized. the wikipedia article on [natural philosophy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/natural_philosophy) is a good read if you have the time.
although, i admit my initial statement of philosophy being a science is inaccurate. the areas of philosophy that i am familiar with are related to experimental philosophy, which can fit under the science umbrella. i wrongly assumed that other areas philosophy would also fit in, but many of them don't satisfy falsifiability and so aren't science.
that was a good read, thank you.
this is my current view as well.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
oppressive
Indicators:
in what sense are you using the word "oppressive"?
Negotiations:
i think you're hard-pressed to demonstrate that marriage 'oppresses' anyone when all parties involved are consenting adults. and i didn't really see anything in your initial post that argued that marriage was oppressive, so why would you think that? if you simply mean by this that the two partners in a marriage are "handcuffing" themselves to each other (as you put it)... i mean, yeah, but you can always get a divorce. admittedly a messy process as you said, but a number of contractual agreements that people engage in freely can be broken only with some messy consequences.
so, in all of this, what we're left with is two (or more) people freely deciding to take place in what you regard as an oppressive and outdated tradition. why would they do this? well, because getting married makes a lot of people happy. i personally wouldn't get married either, but the fact that even in our society today people still want to get married i think says something.
the idea that freedom consists only of relations between consenting adults is a very narrow, formal, and legalistic concept of freedom in my opinion. consent is just the bare bones of freedom. i believe it is actually possible for people to oppress each other (and themselves), even if formally and legally, they are "free." take for instance, the pressure to conform to social expectations. is the threat of being socially ostracized not a serious one? i mean there's a reason why solitary confinement is considered such a harsh punishment. although there is nothing illegal or involuntary about choosing to ostracize someone, being a victim of it is not fun, maybe even less fun than getting mugged or robbed. it's the kind of thing that can drive people to suicide actually, so in a way its more serious than many formal violations of freedom. there is a whole dimension of freedom versus oppression in our (voluntary) social relationships that we don't acknowledge.
so why do i consider marriage oppressive? well in my view you are locking yourself into something - restricting your freedom - unnecessarily. you are free to get a divorce, yes. but it's not just having to deal with the legal system that locks you in, but your own ideals and expectations about what marriage means that are locking you in. yes, it is a consenting "contract" between two adults. but essentially you are freely choosing to give up your freedom. is that really freedom? so i'm not talking about the kind of oppression where one person imposes their will on another without their consent. i'm talking about psychological and social oppression, where ideals and social expectations are concrete barriers to living your life freely and pursuing happiness.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
invented
Indicators:
i'm a little confused by your use of the word 'invented'. reading through the rest of your posts it seems like you mean something closer to 'discovered' or 'theorized'.
Negotiations:
something like a battery, for example, was invented thousands of years ago, does this mean that new and more efficient types of batteries don't count as a technological advancement because they're 'refined' and not 'invented'? what if it's a completely new type of battery, or one using a radically more efficient method of storing the energy?
with what limited information on batteries i have, i still recall reading news story after news story about new research and studies coming out on better batteries. there's a whole lot of research going on in things like [carbon nanotubes](http://www.nanomagazine.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&id=1160:carbon-nanotube-technology-produces-up-to-tenfold-increase-in-lithium-ion-battery-power) that provide vast amounts of power compared to current batteries.
computer controlled cars are also getting bigger, and yet i believe there's still a ton of room for improvement there. consider if we were to automate *everything* on the road. collisons and other accidents would go way down, so low that we might start to wonder why we're even driving around a few tons of metal just to get us from a to b. cars might get smaller, lighter, they could be roomier because we wouldn't need things like a dashboard or a steering wheel. we might not even need to look out the window at all. imagine reclining back in a lounge chair while in your 'car', facing another passenger who is also reclined and relaxed, having a conversation while you commute to work or whatever. imagine the entire thing is powered by solar energy, both from the top of the car and from electric charging stations set up throughout the world.
would you consider this type of transportation system 'new' or just 'refined'?
interesting read, and also i didn't explain myself properly so your fuzziness is completely understandable. to be honest my problem is that i considered a lot of new technologies as "refinements" instead of the what they were. in other words, when i wrote the op i thought of the smartphones as a refinement of cellphones and not as new technology. i was fundamentally wrong when i wrote the post.
my true intention was that we have reached a peak and though we would continue to get new "refinements"(new technologies) in things we already had, we already had obtained the type of technologies we will be using for centuries. for example, sure we would send better and better rovers to mars, but we would never be able to send astronauts because the technologies(different engines, faster travel, cryogenics maybe) to get them there and back would never be developed.
of course after reading all of the posts i got a sense of things that are being developed.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
harm (7)
Indicators:
i'm not sure on your definition of harm?
Negotiations:
if someone breaks their nose or pulls their shoulder out of socket you must do harm to their bodies and inflict more pain in order to restore them to better health. you must re-break a nose to make it heal straight. if you have a dying tooth that is causing pain a dentist must pull out your tooth causing harm for your benefit. but i'd say if you don't want this harm you aren't being rational. by the definition of physical injury these scenarios are harm. so harm is a term that relies on context to decide morality. it's not bad on it's own.
but in that case, it's not really harm, since the net result is a benefit. you're consenting to the short-term pain only for the sake of the long-term gain.
i guess my question would be, who gets to decide from a legal perspective what the relative weight of the pain and gain should be?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
harm (2)
Indicators:
your definition of "harm" excludes the possibility of consent, and your argument is a logical fallacy.
harm is defined as:
[sta-cite]>physical injury, esp. that which is deliberately inflicted.
[end-cite]there is the possibility for people to consent to harm. you are trying to change the definition of harm to support your argument.
Negotiations:
the point i'm making is that the world doesn't get to define what is harmful, only the person consenting does. if they are sane, then by definition they won't consent to what they perceive (overall) as harm to themselves, and they are insane they by definition lack the capacity to consent.
now... can someone consent to something unpleasant in order to gain something they want? of course. i'm saying they don't, prime facie, consider it harm, therefore, and that this is a consequence of them being the only ones that get to define harm for themselves.
the dictionary definition only tells you society's definition of harm. that definition is irrelevant to the concept of consent. only the consenter's definition matters for that purpose.
[sta-cite]>of course. i'm saying they don't, prime facie, consider it harm, therefore, and that this is a consequence of them being the only ones that get to define harm for themselves.
[end-cite][sta-cite]>the dictionary definition only tells you society's definition of harm.
[end-cite]yes it does words have meaning, and we use common meaning when communicating with other people. that how we know what the other person is say. if you have a different definition of harm feel free to define it for me. with your definition of harm your statement has no value.
[sta-cite]>the dictionary definition only tells you society's definition of harm. that definition is irrelevant to the concept of consent. only the consenter's definition matters for that purpose.
[end-cite]the definition of harm has nothing to do with consent.
consent:
[sta-cite]>permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
[end-cite]harm is physical injury, and consent is giving permission for something. so by definition of those two words i can give consent for someone to physically injure me.
if you want to have an argument with definition of those two words that differ from the common use ones. its best to define them up front. everyone else will be using the common use definitions of those words. or do you expect me to read your mind, and know what you are using as a definition of those words ?
the problem is that we're speaking at different levels of jargon, not that the definitions are wrong, per se.
harm, in a metaethical sense, can't be viewed so narrowly. harm, as defined by an individual, is something that a person considers to be a net negative outcome. in cases where one is speaking of probabilistic events, one must view this in an expected value sense.
consent, among people that discuss consent in the context of ethics, includes much more than simple permission. it is a choice, and usually a declaration, made without duress, with adequate information and sound mind, that the consenter does not consider something a net harm, as defined above. any other definition leads to too many ethical problems.
this is why it's nonsensical to consider the possibility that someone can consent to harm, because consent is a declaration of non-harm, made with sound mind and adequate information.
the only reason your statement is true is due to the fact that you built harm in to the definition of consent. if you subtract
[sta-cite]>that the consenter does not consider something a net harm, as defined above.
[end-cite]you argument falls apart. there is no logical reason i can't consent to a net negative if i want to. so your argument is still a logical fallacy because you are redefining words with the sole reason is to fit your point. try defining consent with out explicitly excluding harm in the definition.
you point rest on the fact that you define consent as something that is not considered harmful. so you have no point at all. you definition are flawed, and don't make any statement at all.
i don't think it is possible, actually. if you are of sound mind, not under duress, and adequately informed, you won't consent to something that you consider to be a net-negative (i.e. harmful) activity. if you want to get into the definitions of all of those other terms too, that's fine.
i consider that the only useful and adequate definition of "consent". anything less has too many ethical contradictions.
regardless of what you think with that definition your argument if flawed. if you think its not possible to consent to a net negative you underestimate humans. people constantly consent to net negatives both informed, and willingly. justification is often involved, but not required. some people just stop caring, and they aren't concerned about outcomes. they know what they should and shouldn't do, and know its a net negative. though they stop caring for themselves. they are in no way insane or uniformed.
[sta-cite]>i consider that the only useful and adequate definition of "consent". anything less has too many ethical contradictions.
[end-cite]being of sound body, and mind. while adequately informed about the situation. consents to be a participant, and was not coerced, forced , or otherwise pressured in to being involved.
but, in that case a parent can still sacrifice themselves to save their child. they knowingly put themselves in harm and took harm(their own perceived harm) in order to prevent someone else's harm. by you logic that would make them insane.
harm, speaking in an ethical context, is whatever a person considers to be a net-negative outcome. there's no other way to look at it that doesn't lead to contradictions. but as i pointed out elsewhere, consent can't be made under duress, so your example isn't an instance of consent.
by your definition of harm no person would ever make any decision to harm themselves.
op s example of suicide would be considered sane regardless of their reasons because their goal would be a perceived positive which would be to kill themselves.
your point on duress doesn't hold up.just because there is stress doesn't mean someone can't make an informed decision. by your logic, any person who consents to go into a dangerous profession (such as police) cannot give consent in a stressful situation.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
consent
Indicators:
the definition of harm has nothing to do with consent.
Negotiations:
consent:
[sta-cite]>permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
[end-cite]harm is physical injury, and consent is giving permission for something. so by definition of those two words i can give consent for someone to physically injure me.
if you want to have an argument with definition of those two words that differ from the common use ones. its best to define them up front. everyone else will be using the common use definitions of those words. or do you expect me to read your mind, and know what you are using as a definition of those words ?
the problem is that we're speaking at different levels of jargon, not that the definitions are wrong, per se.
harm, in a metaethical sense, can't be viewed so narrowly. harm, as defined by an individual, is something that a person considers to be a net negative outcome. in cases where one is speaking of probabilistic events, one must view this in an expected value sense.
consent, among people that discuss consent in the context of ethics, includes much more than simple permission. it is a choice, and usually a declaration, made without duress, with adequate information and sound mind, that the consenter does not consider something a net harm, as defined above. any other definition leads to too many ethical problems.
this is why it's nonsensical to consider the possibility that someone can consent to harm, because consent is a declaration of non-harm, made with sound mind and adequate information.
the only reason your statement is true is due to the fact that you built harm in to the definition of consent. if you subtract
[sta-cite]>that the consenter does not consider something a net harm, as defined above.
[end-cite]you argument falls apart. there is no logical reason i can't consent to a net negative if i want to. so your argument is still a logical fallacy because you are redefining words with the sole reason is to fit your point. try defining consent with out explicitly excluding harm in the definition.
you point rest on the fact that you define consent as something that is not considered harmful. so you have no point at all. you definition are flawed, and don't make any statement at all.
i don't think it is possible, actually. if you are of sound mind, not under duress, and adequately informed, you won't consent to something that you consider to be a net-negative (i.e. harmful) activity. if you want to get into the definitions of all of those other terms too, that's fine.
i consider that the only useful and adequate definition of "consent". anything less has too many ethical contradictions.
regardless of what you think with that definition your argument if flawed. if you think its not possible to consent to a net negative you underestimate humans. people constantly consent to net negatives both informed, and willingly. justification is often involved, but not required. some people just stop caring, and they aren't concerned about outcomes. they know what they should and shouldn't do, and know its a net negative. though they stop caring for themselves. they are in no way insane or uniformed.
[sta-cite]>i consider that the only useful and adequate definition of "consent". anything less has too many ethical contradictions.
[end-cite]being of sound body, and mind. while adequately informed about the situation. consents to be a participant, and was not coerced, forced , or otherwise pressured in to being involved.
but, in that case a parent can still sacrifice themselves to save their child. they knowingly put themselves in harm and took harm(their own perceived harm) in order to prevent someone else's harm. by you logic that would make them insane.
harm, speaking in an ethical context, is whatever a person considers to be a net-negative outcome. there's no other way to look at it that doesn't lead to contradictions. but as i pointed out elsewhere, consent can't be made under duress, so your example isn't an instance of consent.
by your definition of harm no person would ever make any decision to harm themselves.
op s example of suicide would be considered sane regardless of their reasons because their goal would be a perceived positive which would be to kill themselves.
your point on duress doesn't hold up.just because there is stress doesn't mean someone can't make an informed decision. by your logic, any person who consents to go into a dangerous profession (such as police) cannot give consent in a stressful situation.
hmm.. i think my response got misfiled... would you say that you "consent" to be hit by a car if you fling yourself in front of it to save a child? i certainly wouldn't. that's a decision made under duress.
well yes they can consent. this is especially true if you have already made this decision up before the incident.
many parents will do everything they can to keep their children safe. it is in their better judgement to do so. any stress or action against their child will result in them doing what they can to protect them.
you also never addressed whether a professional in a stressful and dangerous job can give consent.
nor have you addressed op's original part about whether suicide can be considered a sane decision.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
harm (4)
Indicators:
tell me if i am misinterpreting "harm" or informed consent here.
Negotiations:
i can see many reasons why someone would consent to being harmed if the trade-off is more beneficial than the harm. my point being if benefit of harm [sta-cite]> cost of harm (or amount of harm) then people will consent to it.
[end-cite]for example, the medical world has a lot of these (i.e getting a vaccine.) i and most people would consider getting a needle poked into your body something that harms me, but the benefits of being vaccinated out weigh the costs of the instance of pain.
in that case, the person consenting obviously doesn't consider it "harm" or they wouldn't consent to it. the key point is that they are the only ones competent to judge what is harm to them.
basically, if you get more benefit (of whatever kind) then cost (also of whatever kind) i have a very hard time considering that "harm". you have to look at the big picture.
i just wanted to clarify the definition of harm.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
working (2)
Indicators:
oh, i thought you meant "working on my car" as in polishing it and keeping it in super condition as a hobby, not as in "occasional repairs".
Negotiations:
it's probably not occasional repairs, he probably tools around with it even when there's no real problem.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
talking (4)
Indicators:
by talking on the phone do you mean:
1) speakerphone
2) holding the phone in your hand and/or using your fingers to press things on the touchscreen
?
these 2 things are very different from each other.
Negotiations:
funnily enough, when it comes to distracted driving they're not that different.
i strongly disagree.
one allows you to use 2 hands during driving. the other only allows you to use 1 hand. that's a significant handicap.
one allows you to keep your eyes on the road at all times. the other - if you need to press buttons on a touchscreen, or look at the display - forces you to look away from the road.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
rent-seeking
Indicators:
not really. i'd call it speculation. rent seeking is generally reserved for attempting to alter regulatory structures and such.
Negotiations:
that is not the definition of rent seeking, as scalping tickets doesn't involve any manipulation of the social or regulatory environments. arbitrage is not automatically rent seeking. and arbitrage of tickets isn't necessarily no value added.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
religious (2)
Indicators:
your error is in your definition of religion; you think religion implies a belief in a god, or gods, when it does not.
Negotiations:
&#8710;
view changed. that's a great point about buddhists.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
love
Indicators:
okay, but if you go so far as to empathize with them, put yourself in their place, and do loving acts for someone, then in what sense is that not love?
Negotiations:
because there is no actual loving feeling behind it. for example, if a robot is programmed to say loving things to someone, exactly like a person would, does that robot feel love? no. the actions are separate from the cause from which the actions come from.
same with you choosing to do loving thing to a person. when you love someone you want to do them out of love. in your case, you would simply be going through the motions, because you want to love them.
you see in in marriages in which love has dissapeared. you still care about your so, you do things to make them happy, loving things, you feel empathy towards them, but the love is gone, and the connection is broken. since you would be able to feel empathy towards anyone. and if you so choose, you could be doing loving things to anyone.
but the love would not be there.
a robot couldn't feel empathy, either. and that's the thing--once you have empathy for someone, feeling love is just a tiny step over. in fact it's so close by that i don't actually understand the distinction you're making.
it's not romantic love, and it doesn't mean that you let eyeball-eating-guy babysit your children. it's more like, a genuine emotional feeling of wanting the best for someone.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
learning how to date (3)
learns how to date
Indicators:
but what does learning how to date mean? i am sorry if i got caught up in op's comment's semantics, but it appeared to me that he said people should date to learn how to date. that doesn't make sense.
Negotiations:
i think you have more of a problem with the wording that the meaning behind it.
(btw, i'm a guy)
what he means is you learn what it's like to date, how to treat a girl on a date, how much money it takes to bring a girl on a date, and just lets you practice that before girls have certain expectations. sometimes, dates are the only chance you get to talk to a girl 1v1, and that can also be a learning experience. does that make more sense?
one learns how to date in the same way that one learns how to speak, when to shake hands, or how much personal space to give other people. humans are social creatures, sex (understood in the broadest sense here, not just the physical act) is a social activity, and social activities have to be learned - and the way social activities are learned is not through rote memorization, but by observing, doing, and trial and error (a process referred to as "socialization"). considering how tremendously complex sex and all associated activities are (which is *a lot* of activities), it takes years to learn how to date, and many if not most people never "master" it.
to take a concrete example, amy schalet undertook a study comparing american and dutch teen dating cultures ([here's a good article that she wrote about her findings](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24schalet.html)), along with various social metrics like teen pregnancy, divorce rates, etc. what she found was that the permissive dutch culture, which allows teens to experiment and learn while still living with and receiving the guidance of their parents, created much healthier attitudes about sex and dating than did the restrictive american culture, which limits teenage sexual activity and so creates adults with less experience and knowledge.
learning how to date is also a fairly important thing.
its a relatively important social dynamic. it may seem petty, but when to say "i love you" is huge, along with actually figuring out what the hell saying "i love you" means. how much to text, how much contact you want, need, dont need... how to be a good significant other, how not to get taken advantage of, how to be a good lover, what kind of kinks you have... all of these things you can only learn by doing it.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
leaders (2)
Indicators:
what do you mean by leaders? is this limited to the heads of state, or can governors and mayors also be excempt?
Negotiations:
i was thinking of top level executive leaders of the type who could become dictators. subnational leaders aren't really a consideration in that regard.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
rape culture
Indicators:
just curious, what exactly do you mean by rape culture?
Negotiations:
i'm too lazy to retype everything so i'm just going to link this: http://www.onyxtruth.com/2014/04/11/rapecultureiswhen/
the tl;dr version is that american culture has a particular cultural narrative about rape, a mythos so to speak, and that mythos is not consistant with the reality of what rape is like both in general and for victims. so ideas like men can't be raped, what a victim was wearing makes a difference, rape is committed by strangers - all of those things are false, yet they are part of our cultural narrative. and when people buy into those myths it ends up doing real damage to victims by people who don't believe them, who harass them, etc etc. so yes we as a culture aren't particularly accepting of rape, but we also aren't particularly clear on what rape is, how victims behave, who victims are, who rapists are, etc.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
malfunction
Indicators:
when you put malfunction in quotes for you mean shady cops turning off cameras or do you mean real malfunctions?
Negotiations:
the former.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
socialist
Indicators:
you are narrowing the definition of socialism here, non of this was in your original proposition that all wealth transfer is socialism.
Negotiations:
i think you have this silly yet very common belief that socialism and capitalism are two opposite things. capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.
in fact, every *communist* state utilizes capitalist markets (albeit heavily regulated ones), so you can't even really say that even communism and capitalism are mutually exclusive, and communism is a far more extreme expression of collectivist policy than socialism is.
i think you have a very silly belief that socialism is types of wealth transfer.
socialism refers to actual, physical control of means of production (factories/land).
taxing business is not socialism.
then explain the socialist governments of europe. why is denmark considered socialist, when its government does not own all the means of production?
answer: the government taxes approximately 48% of its total gdp (2009), and uses that money for programs like welfare, public healthcare, and unemployment nets.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
liberals
liberal
Indicators:
except what you're contrasting is conservative and *progressive*, not conservative and liberal.
Negotiations:
progressives and liberals often have a lot of overlap (in part because early liberalism was by nature a progressive change from the status quo), but they're not the exact same thing. moreover, neither progressives nor liberals tend to change things just for the sake of changing them: they may be much more *open* to the idea of reinterpreting traditional understandings of constitutional rights, but that still doesn't say anything about a given example. basically, you're using a dictionary definition of "conservative" and a colloquial definition of "liberal" when op's entire argument was about the original definition of liberalism and its historical focus on civil rights. sure, if we conflate "liberal" and "progressive" then restricting gun rights can fall under that umbrella, but at that point so could making it illegal for the religious to hold public office. (needless to say, i don't think that would end up being considered a liberal position.)
perhaps it would help if i rephrased the question: by my understanding, what op is asking is "why is the restriction of this particular civil right now considered to be a liberal idea, yet in virtually all other cases liberals expand and defend civil rights?" yes, change can be considered liberal, but there are lots of thing that liberals have no interest in changing and, on this sort of thing, they traditionally advocate a very different sort of change.
it's tricky, because liberals are also associated with left-wing idealogies but extreme lefism like socialism is decidely intrusive and 100% for controlling things like gun possession because the left favors strong goverment.
pretty much, which is why the whole "left/right" thing is so problematic in the first place (and where we get horseshoe theory from). liberalism used to be typically a left-wing thing, but leftism hasn't necessarily been liberal, and nowadays ("classical") liberalism is in some weird limbo between the two (with a dash of libertarian) depending on which issues you're looking at.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
liberal (3)
liberals
Indicators:
over time, the meaning of liberalism has changed. what you're thinking of is considered [classical liberalism](https://mises.org/library/what-classical-liberalism).
Negotiations:
you see allot of classical liberalism in the beliefs of modern day libertarians which tend to associate more with the republican party than the democratic party these days.
it's important to realize that there are vast differences in party ideologies from what they were in the past. lincoln freed the slaves but he was a republican
also, do keep in mind, that america's libertarian party is a perfect example of a shift in meaning, as what we call libertarians here is nothing like what the word means elsewhere.
this is true, i was answering on the premise that we were speaking in terms of american politics. i do find the differentiation of political terms around the world pretty interesting.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
votes
Indicators:
votes? you mean a popularity contest?
Negotiations:
i think he meant more along the lines of consumer survey than popularity contest.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
mobility
Indicators:
can you elaborate on mobility? i'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.
Negotiations:
as for upward mobility, i'm referring to economic mobility, and if you want to have that debate we can do that too :)
ahhh ok that makes sense. i usually hear social mobility for the same thing.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
libertarian socialist
Indicators:
what is a libertarian socialist? do you mean you believe in a mixed economy?
Negotiations:
no, libertarian socialism, which right now is the more popular socialist ideology, is having a socialist economic system (everyone owns everything in eli5 terms) without a strong state. sometimes there is no state at all, in which case it is anarchism.
power is not centralized into one entity (the state) but it is spread around the people or groups of people. (representatives usually)
what libertarian socialism and regular right libertarianism have in common is their view of the state. both sides see the state as something that should be minimized or done away with completely.
that seems like it would create an environment where an individual could easily seize power.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
socialism (6)
socialist (2)
Indicators:
your definition of socialism is the one most people hold and is also a lsrge misconception on what socialism is.
Negotiations:
socialism doesn't even want government policies. almost all socialist ideologies end with the state being abolished, the paths are just different. those paths are communism and anarchism
directly from the dictionary:
[sta-cite]>a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
[end-cite]tl;dr any redistribution of income in which you take from the rich and invest in the community as a whole, is socialism. this is most forms of taxation and government service.
no, it isn't. income is not a means of production, nor is it property. factories, tools, processing plants, and to a certain extent, land, are means of production.
socialism calls for the abolition of private property, due to the materialist philosophy it is based on. (marxism) it wants everything to be owned by everyone, so that phenomenons like the dependency theory, socioeconomkc inequality, nondemocratic work places, and bourgeois oppression will cease to exist. labor, a primary focus of socialism, will finally be rewarded for the value produced. a chair maker will no longer esrn 10$ for the 100$ chair he makes. he will be able to appreciate the fruits of his labor.
the correct definition, by the way, in which all socialists agree on, and which karl marx had defined, was democratic ownership of the means of production.
i think you have [socialism](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism?s=t) and [communism](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism?s=t) mixed up. they're two very different things. socialism says very little about the means of production, or the nationalization of property, and is not derived from marxism, but rather collectivist ideas that marx based his own theories on.
going to a internet dictionary to define something as complex as socialism and communism is not a good idea. especially since those dictionaries include colloquial usage of those words.
you have mixed up, yourself, socialism communism and communism.
lower case communism is the final utopian end stage where state, money, and class cease to exist. it was the objective of most socialist ideologies, and in this context, socialism was seen as a transition stage to communism.
upper case communism, which everyone unknowingly knows and does not differentiate from lower case communism, referred to any country in control of a communist or vanguard party that aimed to achieve communism by first nationalizing industry, then hoping that the state would wither away. that ideology is called leninism.
not to mention that not all socialism is nationalization. libertarian socialism and anarcho-communism exist.
[sta-cite]>socialism says very little about the means of production, or the nationalization of property, and is not derived from marxism
[end-cite]...what? that's the whole point of socialism. socialism didn't derive from marx, but it's foundation was built by marx. primitive socialism existed as christian communism where they believed that decentralized communes were the way to go. marx had created a materialist philosophy that justified socialism, analyzed how it would, and showed objectively why capitalism would naturally fail.
you need to actually read marx or socialist literature to understand. just because the public education system or internet dictionary told you x, doesn't mean it is true. socialism has been defined and mapped out for over 200 years.
go to any socialist community and say what you just said, and you are going to be called a liberal and shunned away.
there is also little reason to even be a socialist if you do not accept a materialistic world view, because that is the only thing that actually backs it up.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
higher power
Indicators:
but if by "higher power" you mean something that can and does defy the rules of science and is unexplainable by humans with their current understanding, then it is perfectly logical (and i would say undebatable) to conclude that a higher power exists.
Negotiations:
we could always keep saying "well what caused that" and take ourselves as far back as time could possibly go. i don't think this relates at all to a higher power, simply because i don't see any reason for belief in something that is transcendent in some way, something that communicates with humanity directly.
for all we know, the big bang was some guy pushing enter on a computer and starting a simulation of a universe. that guy would, technically, be a higher power, but he wouldn't be the one people keep saying exists.
wouldn't you agree that saying "we don't know, and can't know, so it could be that it is a higher power" is legitimately rational? i'm not necessarily saying that higher power has any objective or even any care or concern for human kind. but by definition, isn't something that defies science and is both unexplainable by, and incomprehensible to humans a "higher power"?
it's the burden of proof. something doesn't exist by default. our lack of knowledge of the truth doesn't mean it's automatically religion, it simply means we don't know yet.
a lot of things in quantum physics defy science, in that they're unexplainable or don't go along with the laws of physics. but i wouldn't say that these things are a higher power, i would just say that they're interesting.
that's the thing. just because we don't know the answer, that doesn't automatically make it religion. there is no legitimate evidence supporting it, so why would you believe in it? again, just because you don't know the answer, that doesn't automatically make it religion. arguing that god exists because there's nothing else that explains how the universe got here is entirely without evidence. it's just as likely god created the universe as a giant purple penguin named fred did.
you mention religion in your response on at least 4 different occasions. i'm not talking about religion whatsoever. i'm talking about "a higher power".
[sta-cite]> that's the thing. just because we don't know the answer, that doesn't automatically make it ~~religion~~ **a higher power**. there is no legitimate evidence supporting it, so why would you believe in it? arguing that ~~god~~ **a higher power** exists because there's nothing else that explains how the universe got here is entirely without evidence.
[end-cite]when you take the religion aspect out of it and simply retreat back to "a higher power", i would agree that there is no evidence identifying that a higher power created the universe. however, our knowledge of science says that the universe *can't* exists. because our knowledge of science says that matter cannot be created out of nothingness.
so it isn't just that "we don't know". it is that we think we *do* know; but what we *do* know tells us that what we're experiencing is impossible. the very existence of the universe *is* the evidence. because based upon what we know, the universe can't exist. in my mind, that is, by definition, a "higher power"
[sta-cite]> it's just as likely god created the universe as a giant purple penguin named fred did.
[end-cite]yes. as i mentioned previously you can call the higher power whatever you want to call it:
[sta-cite]> > god, allah, abraham, the great spaghetti monster, the unknown, pre-science, etc
[end-cite]i absent-mindedly left fred the giant purple penguin off my list. but fred could just as likely be the higher power as anything else.
what is really boils down to is, when you said this:
[sta-cite]> i'm looking for a legitimately rational argument that supports belief in some sort of **higher power**.
[end-cite]what did you mean by the phrase "higher power". to me, higher power simply means something that is beyond human comprehension and understanding. and by that definition, the existence of the universe is beyond human comprehension and understanding.
a higher power certainly isn't the *only* possible explanation. but it is a **legitimately rational possibility; which is the threshold that you set.**
See entire sequence
Triggers:
better
Indicators:
your definition of "better" seems to be highly **subjective** based upon the metrics that *you* find valuable:
* income equality
* life expectancy
* education (test scores)
* environmentally responsible consumer habits
* mother's and children's rights
* nonviolence
* economic mobility
* inequailty-adjusted hdi
etc.
Negotiations:
you say those are the measures of development for the us, but for lack of a better term, you "cherry picked" the statistics that define development based upon your subjective belief in their value, when there are so many others that can define development as well - not to mention, i'd argue quite a few people would disagree with your metrics as the defining measures of human development such as mother's and children's rights (which vary considerably even in europe) and environmentally responsible consumer habits (for instance, europe is far more reliant on foreign oil from the middle east or russia, all questionable regimes, than the us which gets most of its oil from canada, mexico, or domestically).
not to mention, quite a few of these metrics are debatable to begin with. for instance, education (test scores): aside from the fact that test scores between countries are considered only one of many metrics to measure actual educational performance/attainment, you're also ignoring the other metrics that paint the us in a far different light when it comes to education.
as an example, the us dominates the top university rankings in the world, with a disproportional number of schools. you can see that quite clearly when you consider that the us has more international students than any other country in the world by a fair margin - [18% of all total worldwide international students](http://www.uis.unesco.org/education/pages/international-student-flow-viz.aspx) go to the us for their studies.
which specific metrics and subjective values put the us in a more positive light than europe? you are probably right in that it comes down to a person's individual values, but still some statistics would (i'm guessing) give op some more perspective.
you mention:
[sta-cite]> as an example, the us dominates the top university rankings in the world, with a disproportional number of schools. you can see that quite clearly when you consider that the us has more international students than any other country in the world by a fair margin - 18% of all total worldwide international students go to the us for their studies.
[end-cite]certainly, the best universities in the world are located in america. but is the *average* american university any better than the *average* european/asian one? not to mention that in the us we have an expectation that students fund their entire education, sometimes through personal debt; a concept that doesn't really exist in the rest of the world. so i think the picture here is a little more nuanced.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
economic crisis (2)
Indicators:
you have some misunderstanding about what it means to be in economic crisis, so you come up with pearls like "the european crisis is the hoax of the century"
Negotiations:
"economic crisis" is a bit of a hand-wavy word, but what it's getting at is the general conditions of a recession, which has a specific definition: it means negative gdp growth for two consecutive quarters or more. [as we can see here] (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.mktp.kd.zg/countries/eu?display=graph), the eu experienced a double-dip recession starting in 2008 and is currently in recover from the second dip, which began in 2011 - which is exactly what you would have been told in any mainstream media outlet. since a recession is a sufficient condition for calling a situation an economic crisis, i think we can agree here. but, on top of that, it is extremely true that the unemployment situation in the south is very bad, as is the fallout from the social security obligations which you like so much. the latter two issues are examples of the eu's structural economic crisis, which is the specific thing everybody's worried about. it differs from your run of the mill recession because it is caused by the economic system not working, and can only be fixed by reengineering that system.
i agree with most of what you've said but
[sta-cite]>i think we can agree here. but, on top of that, it is extremely true that the unemployment situation in the south is very bad, as is the fallout from the social security obligations which you like so much
[end-cite]is pretty bad economics in itself.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
humbled (9)
Indicators:
no, what they are expressing is a sense of being unworthy and the recipient of a gift, a gift of talent, a gift of opportunity, a gift of trust from voters. now, it's possible you don't believe what they are saying, but that is what they are saying. "i'm not worthy, thank you, i'll try not to let it go to my head, to stay humble, to keep my feet on the ground despite all these wonderful accolades." that's what it means to say "i feel humbled."
Negotiations:
the word 'literally' "evolving" to mean both literally and figuratively at least makes sense; in the literal sense, literally means "literally", and in the hyperbolic sense, "literally" means figuratively. those are two distinct senses that can be inferred by the context which the word "literally" is used, and although the english language is worse off for it, is a fairly simple change to wrap your head around. same with terrible, fearful, etc. "humbled" doesn't have an easily graspable tangential usage like the other examples.
the beginning part of your comment makes more sense to me. however, i don't see it being used that way *genuinely* often. as i said, when it is used most of the time it seems to be a proxy for pride without having to boast. it seems to be the politically correct way of conveying that you are proud of your/your team's accomplishments. i could accept that that is an acceptable use of the word if those who used it truly meant that a situation had grounded them *more than they were before*; that is, the situation had *humbled* them. beyond that, the use of the word is incorrect as the word is defined currently, and murky in meaning.
humbled
See entire sequence
Triggers:
sociopathic (2)
sociopaths
Indicators:
by sociopath do you mean psychopath? not to be a pedant, but i don't even think sociopath is a used term anymore. and some of the things you're describing don't seem to fit sociopaths or psychopaths.
Negotiations:
the current medical term is antisocial personality disorder, though sociopath and psychopath are both still regularly used outside of documentation. they technically have meant the same thing though they are widely used to differentiate the two sides of the coin which is apd.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
useful
Indicators:
this is impossible to talk about unless you first grant us a rigorous definition of "useful".
Negotiations:
should've thought about this, my bad.
what i mean by "useful" is that it benifits directly to society. ie: the engineer designs the bridge so it won't fall, everyone likes that. the bridge builder man builds the bridge correctly, so it doesnn't fall, everybody likes that.
an artist, how i see it, doesn't directly ontribute to society, but neither do pro-gamers or musician, and yet i praise the later, and not the artist. maybe you could say the artist can help the engineer wind down, making him more focus next-day at work, so he designs a better bridge? seems weird to me...
well then how do you decide if something directly benefits society? the way i see it, artistic (i.e., music, visual art, literature, games, film &c.) and scientific (not *practical*, but frontier) endeavour is the point. that bridge the engineer designed is only meaningful insofar as it facilitates those other things; it is valueless on its own. i suppose a simple way to put it is that things like engineering and computer and medical science make modern life possible, but the arts make it worth living.
not to mention that many engineers don't provide much of value even in practical terms.
the artist can make the bridge look pretty. society doesn't *need* pretty bridges, but if we only had bland bridges we'd look like north korea.
on a more serious note, i find culture very useful to society. it separates us from other cultures and induces a sort of pride in our country. artists are one channel to culture. sure, their job isn't very profitable but many do it out of great interest or hopes that one day their art would become profitable. i mean, look at the famous artists we have today, they're loaded as fuck.
some artists market their talents to something very profitable, like video game design or music video production. sure society doesn't *need* these things, but we hold them in high regard.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
white-dominated
Indicators:
i'm not quite sure what you mean when you said that the classes are "white dominated", as each student is required to attend, regardless of skin color.
Negotiations:
"white dominated" doesn't only refer to the demographics of students taking the class (though as we know it also generally means that), but to the overall system that created the material in the first place. when you read from a textbook, what do you think the race/cultural background of the people who created it was? what about the teachers? the administrators? the experience of students of color educated in this country largely consists of learning about other peoples' culture in a formal setting. why should we not also create a place that's explicitly and formally about them?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
gender (3)
sex
Indicators:
i'm not the biggest expert on this, but i think you're confusing the difference between sex and gender.
Negotiations:
sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women (ie. genitalia). gender refers to the socially-constructed roles, behaviors and attributes associated with men and women (ie. women wear dresses, speak in a higher voice, have longer hair, men have shorter hair, participate in "masculine" activities etc). one way to think of it is a difference in sex is "male and female" and a difference in gender is "masculine and feminine." there are intersex people who are born in between the two poles of sex, but in general this is the difference. basically the idea is that it's a spectrum.
this is more of a description of gender roles in society, rather than gender identity. which is very much a real, not societally-constructed thing as well. your examples don't really line up with your description either - for example, the idea that women speak with higher voices isn't a socially-constructed role.
it's not a universal definition, but the who differentiates between sex and gender identity, as does much of academia. also, if roles define identity, i'm not sure what the difference is?
[sta-cite]> for example, the idea that women speak with higher voices isn't a socially-constructed role.
[end-cite]tone of voice is absolutely [socially conditioned](https://books.google.com/books?id=-8z3cuhv8pyc&pg=pa413&lpg=pa413&dq=tone+of+voice+gender&source=bl&ots=mrj6bjgkwf&sig=ipttdlj8uogfoe1twgvsecckglc&hl=en&sa=x&ei=mgijvfuhi5p9oqt-r4docw&ved=0cfeq6aewcq#v=onepage&q=tone%20of%20voice%20gender&f=false). socially-constructed doesn't mean it's independent of biology. linguists have known about this for years.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
cyv
Indicators:
what is cyv?
Negotiations:
changed your view
See entire sequence
Triggers:
debts (2)
debt (2)
Indicators:
if you want to call any sort of obligation to provide goods, services, money, or anything else a "debt" when you provide this argument you are welcome to, but i would find it easier to follow if you used some symbol to follow your very broad understanding of "debt" - maybe you can call it "debt(2)" so that i know exactly when you don't mean what other people who are in favor of lenders forgiving debtors, i.e. a "jubilee", mean.
Negotiations:
there has been extensive thought and analysis put into forgiving debtors - that is, people who can repay their loans - for centuries, and if you were to rely on that you don't need to explain your thought process too much, since many of the arguments are familiar. but if you're trying to start from scratch with "debt(2)", i.e. an ability to escape any and all obligations, then you need to build the reasoning for your position from scratch, too.
[sta-cite]> i'm not likely to be convinced to change my view by you telling me certain other people don't support my proposal. i am aware my proposal isn't hugely popular.
[end-cite]it isn't the popularity that is important. look, let me put it this way: if i say "i think the government should be funded entirely by property taxes," that isn't a popular view, but people know what other people who talk about the tax system mean when they use the words "property taxes". but if i suddenly break in and say, "oh, no no, when i say *property taxes* i include someone's talents, skills and education as part of their *property*. i would want to assess the value of those properties to that taxpayer and then base his total tax bill on that value." --- well, now we need to start the whole discussion over again from scratch, because even though that's actually a pretty common meaning of the word "property", *nothing* that people are used to saying about "property taxes" is based on that specific meaning of the word property.
so if you are treating your view as a fairly simple extension of the basic points made by other advocates of debt forgiveness, then the extent of the reasoning you give for your views is reasonable but you are limited to what other people mean by "debt" in discussion of this topic. but if you are treating your view as a completely radical new idea that has never been discussed before, with a completely new use of the word "debt" (or ideally, a new word so that other people will know when you are talking about loans and credit, and when you are talking about obligations of all sorts), you haven't even started to explore the consequences of your view, let alone justified it.
that is why people typically remind each other of how other people use words in similar sorts of arguments: because so many premises are built into the argument by the assumption that you are speaking the same language as everyone else.
http://fiscal.treasury.gov/fsservices/gov/debtcoll/dms/top/chldsprtenforcmnt/debt_top_childsupport.htm
[sta-cite]>the debt collection improvement act of 1996 (dcia) authorizes the secretary of the treasury to collect past-due child support by the administrative offset of federal payments. executive order 13019-supporting families: collecting delinquent child support obligations (september 1996), requires the secretary of the treasury to promptly develop and implement procedures necessary for the collection of past-due child support debts by administrative offset (the reduction or withholding of a payment).
[end-cite]the us government calls child support debt.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214338/cm-arrears-and-compliance-strategy-2012-2017.pdf
>in addition, the majority of people recognise the ti
me to pay child maintenance is when it’s due,
not years later when the debt has escalated in
to thousands of pounds. we should not have to
use draconian remedies like forcing the sale of par
ents’ homes in order to
get them to face their
responsibilities.
the uk government calls child support debt, and notes my sort of scenario, that people can be forced to sell their home to pay child support.
i'm getting rather frustrated- i don't enjoy semantics debates and you are arguing that the word debt can't be used for child support when official government websites use the term debt for child support. if you're from canada or australia i could also easily provide a cite that their governments use the term debt for child support. an entirely pointless debate where you are arguing for a non standard definition of debt is very frustrating for me.
[sta-cite]>but if you are treating your view as a completely radical new idea that has never been discussed before, with a completely new use of the word "debt"
[end-cite]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/666
[sta-cite]>another law, specifying indicia of fraud which create a prima facie case that a debtor transferred income or property to avoid payment to a child support creditor, which the secretary finds affords comparable rights to child support creditors; and
[end-cite]here, in the law where they ban reduction of child support, they call it a debt. as i noted before, i am getting rather frustrated at being accused of using the term debt in a non standard way when a few seconds of googling could easily show that this is the official way to use the term.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
terrorism (7)
Indicators:
unless you're restricting your definition of terrorism here to hacktivism like website defacement, property damage, or stealing e-mails, you're essentially calling for attacks on employees of corporations.
Negotiations:
i must politely disagree that anti-corporate terrorism inherently targets humans. one can easily target corporate assets without hurting anyone (physically). for example, destroying a local hsbc branch without anyone inside (kind of like fight club, but, you know, plausible; i hope that reference doesn't damage my credibility). granted, it can cost jobs to locals and hurt families financially, potentially, among other things (it would be a negligible loss to hsbc anyways and would be make for a poor target). alternatively, one can destroy an integral power supply or hijack a delivery truck or any number of things which would hurt the corporation in question once or in a drawn out conflict of attrition.
desensitization campaigns, such as repeatedly placing a empty box or bag outside of facebook (e.g.) headquarters would damage output at no cost to civilian lives.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
resisted
resist (2)
Indicators:
can you define "resisting arrest" for me here?
Negotiations:
for example, [this woman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxynwhg) was arrested for resisting arrest because she was providing legal counsel to her client and wouldn't step away when the cops asked her to. if one of the officers had shot her, do you think they would be deserving of criminal punishment?
i wouldn't consider that video to be an example of resisting arrest. the officer commanded the woman to turn around and put her hands behind her back, and she did so.
i think the definition of "resisting arrest" can differ per state. but for the purposes of this discussion i see it as using physical force to resist an officer placing you under arrest.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
price
Indicators:
what do you mean by price – cheaper or less expensive?
Negotiations:
because diamonds can be beat easily by a multitude of other stones in terms of total cost, and they're certainly not cheap.
i'll concede this point, i'm not an expert by far at buying or selling gemstones and was unaware of their position on the gradient of prices.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
relatively trivial
Indicators:
secondly, i'd like you to clarify what you mean by 'relatively trivial feminist issues.'
Negotiations:
as for your second question, you're totally right. i think i may have understated a bit the 'relatively' part of 'relatively trivial feminist issues'. let me clarify:
i don't think that phrases like '[throw like a gir](http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/women-and-girls-are-showing-that-the-best-way-to-do-things-i#.wtyk2jqd0)l' are harmless or unimportant, but it's been done to death, tends to fall short of focusing enough on the bigger picture, namely the wealth of consequences connected to the lack of female empowerment. we tell women or girls they're beautiful or they're powerful, they suddenly realise it, cue happy music and fade to black. the whole 'girl power' thing is a nice starting point, but it's usually so sentimental that it never gets past being tiresome and self-congratulatory.
i also think a lot of the focus on 'relatively trivial feminist issues' misses the point a bit: it's nice that 'all about that bass' embraces the booty, but is 'skinny bitches' really a feminist-friendly phrase? similarly, all the coverage of [tess holliday](http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/the-biggest-plus-size-model-to-get-a-modeling-contract-has-s#.nak1xwkqm) and the #effyourbeautystandards movement forgot that, despite her size, the modeling/make-up/general-emphasis-on-appearance actually isn't really that empowering; she's still being reduced to a visual object, albeit a less thin one.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
religion (2)
Indicators:
reading some of your replies, it is apparent that you equate "religion" with a series of beliefs, which you define as "ideas" which exist in someone's mind and can be relegated to that space.
this is indicative of someone raised in a western christian culture, where religion actually is little more than a list of concepts and doctrines to which a person claims to hold. there is a very strong history of rationalism in western culture and religion in the west has, at least since the enlightenment, manifested itself as a world of ideas rather than practice. there are lots of reasons for this, but it is important you understand that distinction. religion, as you understand it, is fundamentally different from religion as much of the world understands it. your understanding is also vastly different from even the understanding of christians as recently as the 14th and 15th centuries.
Negotiations:
for most of the world, religion is not a series of ideas or beliefs as much as it is a practice or identity. people don't so much "believe" in the western sense as much as they simply "are" and religion in this sense is understood as the basis for all they do. as an example, look at indian hindus. their marriage traditions, familial kinship, friendships, and every significant aspect of their culture revolves around the hindu pantheon. if you've ever spoken to the average indian hindu, though, you quickly recognize that their devotion to their faith doesn't stem from answering questions or providing purpose to their lives. instead, it is a framework of existence through which they view all other things. it's their very soul.
christians were like this as well for many centuries and still are in eastern christian churches, but in the west, the wars of religion, protestant reformation, and subsequent periods have left a mark on the very meaning of the word "religion", thus clouding your view.
the ideas which inspired those laws providing special protections for religion were devised, at least philosophically, during a period when europeans were tired of people warring in the name of god and using the christian religion to manipulate the masses. they weren't intended to provide protections for the drooling hordes that go to fundamentalist megachurches, sing kumbaya, and then listen to a motivational speech on how much a deity loves them for being themselves. those protections exist for the rest of us, who are marked by our religious beliefs, can't be anything but what we are in the context of our religion, and refuse to elevate any political theory or social concept above it. i am not religious because i believe it. i believe it because i am religious and through that lens, all that i see, think, and do is affected. most people like me can't change that, so we deserve to be protected from those who think it is all just a game of ideas and those who might hold an entirely different religious framework. it keeps the peace.
this is possibly the most important reply here. the way the western world understands the concept of 'religion' is rather historically unusual, and a great deal of the rest of the world understands it in a different way. the op compares "i believe in x and y" to "i like red cars", but the problem is that religion is a far wider concept than just "i believe in x, y, and z...", especially outside the western world. this makes it a lot harder to compare with things like "i like red cars".
the turban-wearing guy in the op's example is not necessarily a case of "i want to wear this turban to work *because i hold a belief in x*." in reality, it would be more like "i want to wear this turban to work because my entire way of perceiving and interacting with the world is completely bound up with it"
See entire sequence
Triggers:
genocide (5)
Indicators:
the term used was not "genocide" but "silent genocide", which from context is painted as the consequence of apathy rather than malice. this is not an error on his part, but yours. you're trying to force a definition of a word into a situation where it is not warranted. it is entirely permissible to coin a new phrase that does not mean the same as the individual words within it.
the only valid criticism on this is that he may have used overly-emotive language.
Negotiations:
really? i took the term to mean 'geonocide ignored by the media/public.'
is tophattington making up an interpretation, or you? or both?
what we do know is that chomsky himself did not define it, indicating he thought standard language meanings would be ok. he is a linguistics professor - whatever can be said of his politics, i think we can assume he has the ability to communicate in a debate like this without freestyle word association.
we know he did not explicitly define it, but the definition can be inferred from context.
[sta-cite]> i took the term to mean 'geonocide ignored by the media/public.'
[end-cite]so, apathy.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
hypocrite
Indicators:
do you mean there's no hypocrasy within the argument the smoker is making itself? or that the smoker themselves aren't hypocritical?
Negotiations:
both i guess, not practising a policy/behaviour/whatever that you claim is good/argue for is not hypocrasy. a hypocrite would be someone who smokes denouncing smoking saying "any health conscious person like myself knows the risks of smoking and so does not".
hypocrisy involves lying, not just a failure to "practice what one preaches".
although that is just a technical definition that does not really match how it is often used so i probably am just being pedantic.
hmm, ya so like 'liberal' or 'good' or 'life' words can apply to different definitions, essentially they might as well have totally different spellings but since that luxury isn't avail, i'll clarify that the 'hypocracy' im applying here is like the examples in the post text, so my take wouldn't encompass the definition of hypocracy to which lying is a necessary component.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
debate (2)
Indicators:
to say that there is not debate, you have to change the definition of the word "debate".
Negotiations:
the "debate" is a manufactured thing, designed to create ratings or make for good television. fine, that's self-evident. but the debate itself is ludicrous in that one side is false. therefore, the platform giving this wildly dangerous viewpoint a voice should be challenged and stopped.
wrong. what i'm saying is that the debate is manufactured by "fair and balanced" reporting, and it is allowed to grow due to the irresponsibility of this kind of reporting.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
wise
Indicators:
is it though?
Negotiations:
[sta-cite]> additionally without doing either of these things you don't really understand what it means to be drunk or high.
[end-cite]i also don't know how it is to have a penis or what it's like to be a lawyer. is there any reason that not understanding these things makes me inferior to somebody who does?
what is a better definition of wise if not having more experiences or a broader range of experiences?
yes, not having a penis or not being a lawyer makes you inferior when it comes to taking about or making laws about people who have or are those things. you have no firsthand experience so your opinion is less valid than someone who does.
you also didn't address my point that drinking or smoking marijuana might help you better understand our culture or history. there are many mentions of both drugs (marijuana and alcohol) in tv shows, movies, books, ect. without doing either, i think it would be hard to understand the character's motivations or actions in many of those culture objects.
[sta-cite]> what is a better definition of wise if not having more experiences or a broader range of experiences?
[end-cite]well, one better definition is the [general definition of wisdom] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/wisdom): being able to understand the experiences that you have.
[sta-cite]> makes you inferior when it comes to taking about or making laws about people who have or are those things.
[end-cite]well, sure, but that wasn't in your cmv. also, no, not being x does not make your opinion automatically inferior to somebody who is x. for instance, somebody who has critically examined the interchange between sex and gender and how it presents in society would be a better lawmaker than just a random person with a penis.
[sta-cite]> you also didn't address my point that drinking or smoking marijuana might help you better understand our culture or history.
[end-cite]that's because you didn't tell me why i should strive to understand your culture or history. perhaps my time is better spent understanding the culture and history of the prohibitionists or the quakers, who have pretty much 0 exposure to alcohol. also, is it the act of drinking alcohol that will help me understand you, or is it the act of drinking alcohol *within your cultural-historical paradigm* that will give me that knowledge? because i imagine the social norms revolving around alcohol in america are different than in italy are different than in japan are different than in saudi arabia.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
skeptic (2)
skeptics
Indicators:
questioning accepted truths is exactly what it means to be a skeptic. how can you praise it in one paragraph but insult it in another?
Negotiations:
skepticism doesn't mean questioning or disbelief, it means suspending belief until a certain burden of proof is met.
i described rationalwiki as anti-informational, but not for being skeptical or testing, but for self-praise, naive realism, and fundamentally not "believing" on understanding the information, but on following pop culture and modern science without actually understanding it, and claiming to understand it. the ignorance of modern "skepticism" is thinly veiled.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
wikis (3)
wiki (3)
Indicators:
your claim as to what wikis are is incorrect about the very first wiki ever.
Negotiations:
the original wikiwikiweb site was the portland patterns repository, an extremely specialist site about software design patterns, started in 1995 (six years before wikipedia). and it isn't even a specialist *encyclopedia* - it includes *a couple of decades' worth* of long, rambling discussions on these and related topics.
as for the definition of a wiki, i would argue that my definition is relatively accurate for *today*. i am relatively young and did not see the early days of the internet, so my perspective is mostly from the modern era of the total dominance and mostly-trustworthiness of wp.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
blue collar
Indicators:
define blue collar.
Negotiations:
construction workers, tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, etc.), ironworkers, factory workers, and employees of public works departments all make pretty good wages. that would be one classic definition of "blue collar." relatively few people work in these fields compared to decades past, however, especially factory workers.
service workers in relatively less skilled positions do not generally make great wages, and are often included in other definitions of "blue collar." while professional waiters and waitresses actually can make good money, this is not the case for gas station attendants, fast food workers, grocery store clerks, etc.
jobs you can get without a trade school or college.
or any job that pays $30,000 or less in the midwest, or less than $50,000 in california/nyc etc.
i'm talking household income by the way, so basically single parents, or families with a stay at home parent and one wage earner.
or it could be two wage earners making minimum wage.
so - nursing, police, electricians, plumbers, etc - that would generally be considered blue collar - you are excluding?
i've worked construction in the past. my supervisor had only a high school diploma and was making well over 50k a year, in a fairly rural area. this was the rule more than the exception. this is absolutely not true of all jobs requiring only a high school education, but to say it's not *possible* to make decent money in a blue collar job is far different from saying it's much more difficult or that it's uncommon.
also, i think your 30k and 50k cutoffs are somewhat circular reasoning. you can't say blue collar wages are too low and then define "blue collar" as an income level.
well unfortunately i can't change the post title. but for purposes of the argument replace blue collar with 30 to 50k depending on cost of living index
but that changes the entire nature of your argument. saying blue collar jobs don't pay enough to raise a family on is a very, *very* different thing from saying that a certain level of income isn't sufficient to raise a family on.
as far as i know blue collar is just an adjective. is there a hard income amount for it posted somewhere?
blue collar *is* an adjective, and it traditionally refers to manual labor. it usually includes trades, which pay better than unskilled labor, but blue collar jobs in general don't pay all that poorly, they're just harder to come by than they were a few decades ago.
there isn't a specified income level for blue collar jobs in general, and that's my point. you started out by saying that a certain type of work (blue collar) couldn't support a family, and then changed your position to a certain income level, regardless of the type of work being done.
i'm not sure how the type of work is relevant at all to raising a family. based on the context of the title it should have been clear it was referring to income. i'm sorry if it wasnt.
why? blue collar does not refer to income but a type of work (manual labor). so why would your title clearly be about income. and if it is clearly about income then the use of the term 'blue collar' implies it is clearly about income of blue collar jobs. which implies you think the majority of blue collar jobs pay badly. so it was a relevant argument against the post.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
improbable
Indicators:
it may be just semantics, but to me improbable means that we can assign some arbitrarily small number to the probability that an event will occur.
Negotiations:
that is what it means, but that's still a far cry away from "impossible".
See entire sequence
Triggers:
well
Indicators:
that really depends what your definition of "well" is.
Negotiations:
when i finished high school, i was fluent in swedish and english, and could hold a very basic conversation in french and spanish - just enough to order at a restaurant or greet someone properly. some learn more, of course, but i wouldn't say the average swede does.
now that i think about it i know a few swedes that speak only swedish and almost no english. i've never met a finnish person that spoke less than three languages well. with that said, even compared to england americans don't have a high standard for language.
there are very few swedes that aren't from way out in the country of my generation who aren't conversational in english, though a lot of us speak with an accent, and get a bit self-conscious when we have to speak a lot.
i'm from america and whenever i go to europe i have to convince people that they speak well. in america we are used to speaking to people that speak english as a second language and at least here in california it is rare for people to correct others for poor pronunciation.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
rational (3)
Indicators:
also, i'm not sure exactly what you mean by "rational."
Negotiations:
an argument that humans need to produce offspring to continue existence is perfectly rational and very strong, possibly more so than the rational arguments against reproducing.
by rational, i mean that it is personally beneficially, socially beneficially or existentially meaningful. it is not personally beneficial because of the cost and the time investment. it is not socially beneficial because of the environmental impact. it is not existentially meaningful because eventually the human species will die or of course, the universe will ultimately end, so what's the point of "continuing the species" when we know it is futile. furthermore, if we know it is futile, any joy derived from it is superficial and purely egotistical. the human instinct to reproduce is not rational, as we currently understand reason.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
reason
Indicators:
please define "how we currently understand reason" since i get the feeling we are using different definitions.
Negotiations:
i provided a "working" definition of it when i said personally beneficial, socially beneficial, or existentially meaningful. more specifically, to reason, would be to do the mental math of tabulating those categories. now, i'm being careful here because i am hoping not to devolve into a basic philosophy course discussion of the long history of reason and the many different definitions it had.
that's not the definition i would use but i'll work with it for now.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
scientists (5)
Indicators:
the only approach i can think of to change your view is to examine what you mean by "scientists".
Negotiations:
while the overall scientific community would respond as you say, undoubtedly there are many scientists who wouldn't - either because they lack the mental flexibility to rethink their world, or they have a vested interest in the status quo. now, i think this would be a small percentage overall, but certainly not all scientists would behave "correctly".
originally, i was going to title my cmv as "scientists don't have to assume the uniformity of nature" but i wasn't sure how i would argue that, but the way i did title it does make it sound like a generalization saying that there aren't scientists who do it wrong. the fact that there could be scientists that do it wrong is reason enough for this.
∆
See entire sequence
Triggers:
assume (2)
Indicators:
this statement makes me think my definition of assume is probably wrong.
Negotiations:
i'm using assume to mean a commitment to a particular answer as being the only possible answer and a denial of anything that would suggest otherwise.
the first definition of assume when i google searched "definition assume"
suppose to be the case, without proof.
typically when someone "assumes" a fact, it is because proving it outright is either impossible or difficult or time consuming. they are usually going to follow the consequences until something is observed which doesn't make sense. when science makes observations that do not match the assumptions they have about the world, the assumptions are often changed.
for a long time it was assumed that the sun and planets orbit the earth, until people began to track the positions of those objects in the sky and noticed that their behavior didn't match the assumed behavior.
what i'm saying is you are probably correct about your misunderstanding.
it could be a regional/dialect thing; the google dictionary says "suppose to be the case, without proof." which doesn't really say one way or another; but i know that when i typically use the word, it's after i realize that i was mistaken about something because i assumed incorrectly, and when i do that i don't go on thinking that must be the case. but i do think that you and i have differing opinions of what it means to assume.
as far as science is concerned (as far as i can tell after googling "assumption scientific definition"), an assumption is considered a statement that is accepted without evidence; so there isn't any hard evidence or mathematical law that states that nature must be uniform, but as far as we can tell it is, so we accept it as a given when designing experiment models. it hasn't ever really been proven wrong, but you can't really prove that there will never be variation from that uniformity, just that there is a high likelihood based on past observation that there never has been variation.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
disproportionately
Indicators:
how do you define "disproportionately?" what's the proper proportion and how do you know that?
Negotiations:
if childhood indoctrination had no effect on the grown up adult's religious choice, and there are more than 3 religions, more than a third of adults should be of a different faith than their parent.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
ideology
Indicators:
how do you define ideology?
Negotiations:
a system of ideas. it could vary between a bunch of topics, but i am talking about ideas of religion
the scientific method is a system of ideas. it relies on inductive logic, to be sure, but you still have to start out with the idea of experimentation as a form of empirical support. science as we know it is a product of the ideas of the 1500s-1700s (ish), and is very much a "system of ideas". what makes the scientific method different from religion?
don't all parents teach a "system of ideas" to their children? if your parents have ever spoken politics around you, they were discussing a system of ideas, and by a certain logic, practicing indoctrination.
morality is a system of ideas. should we not teach kids to be moral? if they're taught a strictly atheist moral system, that's still an ideology.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
frivolous
Indicators:
frivolous has a very limited meaning, and this lawsuit does not qualify.
Negotiations:
to be frivolous, a lawsuit must have no merit. but here, mcdonald's deliberately set the temperature of their coffee to one that could cause tissue damage ([sta-cite]>110 degrees f). had they set that coffee to a temperature under 110, it would be highly unlikely that any damage would have ensued. so they are at least partially at fault in any scald injury. liebeck did indeed suffer a scald injury, and she did so by exposure to hot mcdonald's coffee. with those elements satisfied (mcdonald's had a duty to safeguard its customers, it took an action that conflicted with that duty, she suffered injury, and the injury was caused by mcdonalds' action), the case is not frivolous.
[end-cite]we might want to live in a world in which coffee can be served above 110f without fear of lawsuits. i happen to enjoy mcdonald's coffee. that desire doesn't change the definition of frivolous, however.
and a lawsuit alleging a breach of that duty is not frivolous. frivolous has a specific definition.
you're right. i messed up by using the word frivolous.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
frivolous
Indicators:
frivolousness (the actual legal term) is a really high bar.
Negotiations:
there are two types, factual and legal frivolousness. for factual frivolousness the supreme court [has held the standard to be as follows.](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9141408508548092395)
[sta-cite]>[a] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are "clearly baseless," 490 u. s., at 327, a category encompassing allegations 33*33 that are "fanciful," id., at 325, "fantastic," id., at 328, and "delusional," ibid. as those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.
[end-cite]this case is clearly not factually frivolous under that standard. the facts alleged were that the plaintiff was burned (true) by coffee that was hot (true), that was above industry temperature standards (a plausible assertion of fact), and that mcdonald's willfully made its coffee hotter than standard (a plausible assertion of fact).
as far as legal frivolousness, this is defined [as follows:](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=868429855339617087&q=legal+merit+frivolous&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33)
[sta-cite]>an appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where none of the legal points are arguable on their merits.
[end-cite]in this case, there was at least a plausible case for tort negligence based on the alleged facts. it might be a case that's a likely loser, but as long as there's some level of sane argument to be made, it's not frivolous.
i should not have used frivolous, but i can't argue with that! ∆
See entire sequence
Triggers:
abnormal (3)
Indicators:
regardless of connotations or how people feel about words, abnormal does not mean negative.
a word isn't there for everyone to pile on their own meaning to it. a word has a defined meaning. otherwise we'd be in chaos
Negotiations:
as a /u/[deleted] has pointed out [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/srsdiscussion/comments/2c3toa/the_use_and_connotations_of_the_word_normal_and/):
[sta-cite]>abnormal is another word that ought mean a practice, phenomenon or occurrence that is outside the normal range, as a term purely of description. instead, it is almost entirely used in a pejorative, pathologising or negative sense.
[end-cite]if you tell me a word, it dosen't matter what its dictonary deffinition is. the only things that do matter are what you wanted to convey with that word and how i understood it. when you call something "normal" other people hear you saying "this is the way it should be".
if "normal" really only meant "most common" then there would be no controversy and this thread wouldn't exist.
not true. prescriptive linguistics have fallen out favour (if it was ever in favour, and many/most would say it wasn't) and english (and most other languages) is governed by descriptivism, not to mention that the study of linguistics itself is inherently descriptive. countless words have already changed meaning, so if you want to avoid "chaos" it's too late.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
unemployment (3)
Indicators:
think about the definition of unemployed here, meaning you are seeking work. that isn't the same definition in france, those who are not seeking work and could participate in the work force (not retired) are included
Negotiations:
that's not the definition of unemployed in the us, we don't have a definition for unemployed nor do we have any data which actually measures unemployment. the u measures only include people who answer cps questions indicating that they would both like to work and currently are not working. if someone does not want work right now they are not counted towards any of the u's, they are not considered part of the labor force.
on the unemployment issue, i believe both the us and french governments use the same definition of the word, even though the culture may be different.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
emerge spontaneously
Indicators:
when you say "emerge spontaneously," do you mean without any human design? the network gets big enough that the ai just kind of appears?
Negotiations:
it's not a matter of the network getting big enough that an *ai* "appears". it's a matter of it getting big enough to the point that *consciousness itself* begins to exist in it.
your brain is a series of billions and billions of neurons that interact with each other. through these interactions, your consciousness exists. we can probably both agree that if you only had 10,000 neurons that you wouldn't be the same entity that you are right now.
it's a question of at what point does consciousness itself, begin to exist within a system like that?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
free will
Indicators:
i disagree with the statement "if everything is determined there is no free will."
i define free will as "ability to act according to your desires."
Negotiations:
this is possible in deterministic universe, thus no magic is needed for free will to exist.
what are your desires if not a neurological phenomenon mixed in with environmental influences?
sure they are.
what's the problem?
if the above is true then your definition of free will falls under the free will of folk psychology. we go around day by day making decisions but those decisions are nevertheless a byproduct of complex casual mechanisms? are they not?
no. it's a perfectly good definition.
(btw, where is yours?)
and yes, people going around acting according to their complex desires(which are a result of a complex chain of events) are exercising free will.
again, what's the problem?
why does the chain of events matter?
what matters if you acted in accordance to your desires, not where those desires came from.
then you define free will as acting according to the desires which cannot be chosen ahead of time by the subject. in what sense is their will (i.e. desires) free if they don't write them?
your definition of free will likely exists but i think it's a misleading misnomer at best.
it's not a misnomer at all.
let's go on the streets and ask people: "do you think being able to do what you want is free will?"
many will say "yes."
i think you are the one convoluting the definition by trying to require some kind of total control of your desires that are independent from your nature or from outside circumstances.
i simply don't understand why is the ultimate source of your desires relevant here?
because if satisfying your desires qualifies as free will and yet we have no control over our desires or how strong they are or if they conflict with one another then in what sense is that will "free"?
it seems to be, by the definition you proposed an oxymoron.
so what, if i got thirsty because it was hot outside - means i have no free will?
weird.
i would say if can drink when thirsty - i have free will.
what caused the thirst is a irrelevant red herring.
it would mean my decision to drink water was under duress and would not constitute "will carried out freely". it's about as weird and bizarre as, well, duress with another human being the origin.
a similarly strong desire to drink water could be achieved by me pointing a gun at you. is that free will?
the problem with your argument is that you assume that determinism is true. the reality is that modern science has evidence to the contrary https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jint5kjoy6i
in addition, you are saying that we don't have free will because of cause and effect. but it's important to realize that we have a role in choosing the effect. for instance, if i see a dollar on the floor, i can choose whether or not i want to pick it up. it's not like the outcome where i pick it up is the only possible outcome.
i still don't see how free will is possible, whether it is random or cause and effect.
you don't understand. the argument is that your neurons firing is a result of cause and effect. there is no way for you to "will" your neurons to fire differently.
saying that we don't don't control our neurons isn't exactly true http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/mind-over-matter-study-shows-how-177580
i think you're miss understanding the research because it doesn't have anything to do with free will. there is a stimulus which causes neurons to fire, that's all that's happening in terms of the free will/cause and effect debate. (what's noteworthy about this research is simply that the stimulus activates neurons which govern consciousness, which then activate the neuron that they are examining. but that doesn't mean anything outside of cause and effect is happening).
neurons firing is your "will." we need to stop talking about our brains as though they aren't "us". the idea of me telling my brain to be different doesn't make sense because my brain is what's doing the telling.
that's my point; that there is no "super-natural" entity such as the soul which causes neurons to fire in a different manner than they already are going to based on cause and effect (and quantum uncertainty at the quantum level).
See entire sequence
Triggers:
media
Indicators:
could you define "media" in this context?
Negotiations:
ok media here means content, sorry english isn't my first language, i meant content.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
unfair
Indicators:
define "unfair" in this context, please.
Negotiations:
it's unfair for the creator not to be compensated well for making a product that people find useful.
i mean what meaning of "unfair" are you using? "unjust"?
it de-incentivises creation. if i work for years to create something, sacrificing time and money, but then have that thing stolen, why in the world would i ever waste my time creating again? in fact, depending on my sunk cost, the lack of profits made by the theft could make it impossible for me to continue creating.
let's take the example of a movie. now a days, a movie is just a bunch of data, but it's data that took years and millions of dollars to create. if you take away my ability to market that movie as i see fit, you're doing the exact same thing as taking away to my ability to market an actual, physical product.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
sentience (3)
Indicators:
[i think that the ability to feel pain or pleasure is a baseline for sentience]
Negotiations:
(https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=utf-8#q=define%20sentient)
the ability to feel pain and pleasure subjectively is a baseline for sentience. arguably, and in many philosophical definitions, the ability to reason is also a requirement.
the ethical nature of killing young children with under developed brains and/or people that have disabilities that effect their internal processes in a way that disallows them from putting their sentience to use or full use is not the question. a complete lack of sentience and reasoning capabilities in a group of organisms is different than singular members of a group being damaged in a way and raising a ethical concern about destroying those vast minority members. that being said, the fact that we are talking about ethics, whereas animals kill for instinctive reasons based in no ethics, is a great example of sentience vs non-sentience.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
valued
Indicators:
what do you mean by this? animals evolve to suit a particular environmental niche. their reproductive strategies are going to be designed for the role they live in. i'm not sure why that means, to you, that they are "genetically not valued"
Negotiations:
human life is inheriently valued because lots of resources are pumped into one child. on the other hand, insects are not valued because a few resources are pumped into lots of children. this means that they expect most to die, meaning their ability to detect pain will be very basic, if it exists at all.
they are not genetically valued because they're using a shotgun. they expect that a very large portion of the population is going to die
See entire sequence
Triggers:
pain (2)
Indicators:
define pain.
Negotiations:
i don't know how to define pain, but given what we know about the world, there are requirements to feel pain. a nervous system and a brain. seeing that plants don't have what it takes to feel pain, i don't believe they can feel pain.
....ok, let's set aside the fact that you're making conclusions about something you have admitted you don't have a definition for for now.
nervous systems have responses to strong stimuli classified as pain. plants have responses to damage classified as, i don't know, let's call it zyx. what makes pain more deserving of prevention than zyx, besides the fact that you personally have never experienced and don't understand zyx? in other words, why should we work to stop pain and not zyx?
because suffering is bad and we have no reason to think zyx is bad.
what makes zyx not bad?
what reason do i have to think it is?
it's a response to the same stimuli that bring forth a bad reaction in organisms with a central nervous system. the function of the response is similar to pain: aid in defense. finally, reactions to damage to organisms in those organisms are almost always negative because it is meant to discourage them from seeking it.
what reason do you have to think that it's good?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
medically-appropriate
Indicators:
i'd ask you to elaborate on your definition of "medically-appropriate" as this will be essential for further discussion.
Negotiations:
if the doctor will give a certificate for it, you don't have to get the shot. i think it is okay for there to be some extra leniency here, because the intent is not to provide subpar medical care to those already suffering.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
many (2)
Indicators:
does many = a significant minority? nope.
Negotiations:
here's what miriam webster defines "many" as.
[sta-cite]>many- consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number
[end-cite]"many" doesn't have to refer to a significant minority. it can refer to a small minority (provided that the number is numerically large enough) or it can refer to a majority.
doesn't this make it even easier to prove my original point? i thought you were only complaining because you thought i meant a majority, which i never did.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
keynesian economics (3)
Indicators:
are you talking about 'keynesian economics' as described by economists (and, if so, exactly which formalization?) or 'keynesian economics' as described by media pundits, politicians, /r/politics &c.?
Negotiations:
assuredly the latter. i am but a humble layperson who has no economic training, and therefore am far more set in my view than any actual economist.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
mls teams
Indicators:
and what are mls teams?
Negotiations:
major league soccer.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
better
Indicators:
i dont think you know what better means...
Negotiations:
[sta-cite]> but about being less boring and more competitive.
[end-cite]this counts as 'being better'
See entire sequence
Triggers:
marriage (15)
Indicators:
you say that marriage is a historically religious concept. but what we now call science also used to fall under the auspices of religion, in pretty much every society.
Negotiations:
also, religions have historically provided what we now call a legal or governmental framework. the hebrew scriptures, for example, outline penalties for various behaviors they define as crimes. so if we are free now to separate science from faith, and church from state, then we are free to choose whether the word "marriage" belongs solely to religion, or if it is one of those matters, like criminal penalties, divorce, and the rights of adult daughters to disobey their fathers, that we now place in the legal/governmental realm.
your appeal to history also breaks down inasmuch as the definition of marriage has alreadychanged drastically over the years, in the hands of both religious and governmental authorities.
marriage in many major religions used to allow for one man and many wives, but few religions and governments allow this now.
marriage used to be synonymous with male ownership of a wife, and everything that she owned. in most religions, the wife didn't even have to be willing; she was the property of her father to begin with and had to marry whomever he chose to sell her to. the laws in western nations have put an end to this idea of ownership in a marriage, at times over the objections of religious authorities.
marriage used to be until death, without exception, a permanent state of being. now it's quite temporary in some cases, at the insistence of legal authority.
so this couples-only, egalitarian, potentially temporary, entirely voluntary arrangement is still called marriage, when it used to be polygynous, involuntary for the woman at least, male-dominated, and permanent. if we can change a thing that much without changing the name, we can allow same-sex couples and still call it marriage.
i see your points and your are right. the idea and definition of marriage has changed a lot but how long did that take to happen. since the government is changing this, it means more to people rather than if society, just changes it. its going to change, just give it time. this event is similar to events like you said when polymony was made illegal, was as many people affected, no. but similarities can be see as the definition of a word was changed by a government and people were affected.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
marriage (13)
Indicators:
marriage is basically a homonym.
it has a religious meaning and a legal meaning.
Negotiations:
the whole debate around marriage equality, in my eyes, boils down to the refusal of both sides to give up the word 'marriage'.
i'd argue that marriage should retain its legal definition and be divorced (ha!) from religion. religious marriage should be called 'matrimony'
isn't the term for having been through a matrimony a marriage? that might not come out quite right but hope you can understand it.
i got a good chuckle out of your divorced idea.
i agree both sides want it and i think the easiest way to fix it, is change the legal side. that is quite easy, just change a word on a document and bam! done.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
abstract sum
Indicators:
what do you mean by "abstract sum?" i don't think i understand.
Negotiations:
for some people, money is just a number in their bank account that they try to grow more, not for any purpose of using it to buy anything.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
goal (2)
wants (6)
Indicators:
a goal in itself, would just be one additional "want", and nothing more.
Negotiations:
&#8710; touche!
i'll concede that you are right -- "goal" and "wants" aren't well defined in my op, and the conclusion can't work without clearer terms. i posted these thoughts perhaps a bit to hastily.
that said, i don't entirely agree with everything you say, mostly because in philosophic terms, english (and perhaps any language) is incapable of grasping just about any phenomenon in life, resulting in mis-translations between the mind and the page. attempting to define, for example, "wants," in your final paragraph, lead to grasping conclusions like, "do we simply slip into a catatonic state until the desire for the next cup of tea arises?" of course not, that's not how people work.
so yes, you are right, i am wrong by my op's terms.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
ethnicity
Indicators:
i'd like to see your definition of what does and does not count as an ethnicity.
Negotiations:
groups like the finns would hit all of the notes in my book.
i was more taking about norway than finland but forgive me if i'm wrong but doesn't finland have large populations of people with swedish and russian ancestry?
forgive me because i don't know much about finland but hasn't it been ruled by either sweden or russia far more than it has been independent in the last thousand years? just because it is independent now, doesn't mean you can discredit that past, and the experiences of those people.
it's hard to say whether or not there are large populations of "swedish" people in finland. swedish as a language was enforced on the people of sweden in a similar manner to how many native americans were forcibly westernized in america and canada, and even when finland gained its independence a significant minority of the nation still spoke swedish as a first language (and in other historical cases, swedish nobility and gentry moved to finland, or the finnish middle class voluntarily learned swedish to mingle with the elite). many of them believe they are ethnically finnish but belong to a separate linguistic community, others believe that they are not finnish at all, and there's no real consensus. by contrast, the russian population of exceedingly small and recent, making up approximately 1% of the population, having increased ten times from 0.1% since the dissolution of the soviet union. as a whole the majority of finland is a homogenous state, especially if you adhere to the belief that the swedish-speaking minority are ethnically finnish.
furthermore, a ethnicity does not need to have an independent nation-state to exist. i am descended in part from both staunch catalan and quebecois nationalist branches in my family: catalonia has not been an independent country since the 14th century and quebec has never been independent. despite that, the catalans and quebecois maintain separate, distinct ethnic identities based on culture, art, history, language and consanguinity.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
ethnic (2)
ethnicity
Indicators:
the concept of ethnicity isn't very defined.
Negotiations:
"i don't understand it so it's just an arbitrary thing".
that's flawed logic, and in this case perhaps even ignorant.
i've heard a similar argument to deconstruct ethnicity and while there are many valid points, i think it's naive at times. there's a separation between what i see as physical ethnicity and identified ethnicity (not real terms, just what i could come up with). i understand someone can i identify as swedish and not have ancestry from that region/history and i believe if you can assimilate into a country that well that you can identify with the culture, language, etc. then you have made a great effort and i believe they would be a wonderful addition to the country. but take a japanese person and a french person and set them side by side and tell me there's no identifiable concept of physical ethnicity.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
children
child (4)
Indicators:
it would greatly help if you clarified whether or not you mean adult children or child children.
Negotiations:
&#8710; i meant for the conversation to be about children who are able to have a logical conversation, so probably somewhere around high school age unless you have a very intelligent child. sorry i was not more clear in the original post.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
respect (2)
Indicators:
that’s not the only definition of respect.
Negotiations:
when a soldier jumps on a grenade and is blown apart to protect his friends, it is unlikely that he was using rational ability and using well-thought decisions. he was acting on instinct but we still respect him for that decision.
to the point about my definition of respect: i know that there are many ways you can define it, but in this specific post, that is how i am defining it for this conversation. i think it is a bit of a stretch to compare a parent's concern to jumping on a grenade, but i see your point.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
patriotism (4)
Indicators:
i think it helps to distinguish patriotism from nationalism.
Negotiations:
patriotism could be defined as allegiance to the best hopes and ideals of your country. nationalism is often merely a knee-jerk "my country right or wrong" reactionary feeling.
given those two definitions i could find myself supporting patriotism. like everything else there would be some blurring of the lines but you're going to have that regardless.
as soon as you make the distinction "we" and "they" you antagonized people only for not being part of your country.
i don't believe that under the more enlightened definition of patriotism i necessarily have to alienate people who are non-citizens of my home nation. at least as long as the ideals i espouse are universal in scope they should apply to everyone. so i would praise my home nation for it's adherence to democracy, or criticize it for failing to live up to that ideal. i would then wish that all people could enjoy that ideal or even praise foreign nations that did it better while still claiming i am patriotic.
i think.... maybe that works... off the top of my head here.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
patriotism (4)
partriotism
Indicators:
i feel like this is inevitably going to turn into a semantic argument about what the definition of patriotism is and isn't. can you clarify what exactly *you* mean by it?
Negotiations:
is there a difference between patriotism and nationalism?
yes, though different people have slightly different interpretations of what they mean.
[source 1](http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-nationalism-and-patriotism/)
[source 2](http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ccmqfjaa&url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fopinions%2fnationalism-vs-patriotism%2f2014%2f02%2f23%2f9129d43a-9afc-11e3-8112-52fdf646027b_story.html&ei=7hmzvdrud4p8-agxtpkidq&usg=afqjcnemlxl9ks0oeowx3-slbw_d2d_lga&sig2=wh4h8opanosypvdes64s6w&bvm=bv.96952980,d.cww)
[source 3](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/patriotism-versus-nationalism-america-5568)
every idea or ideal that our country is more important, better and superior to others. every action against other countries only due to them not being your country. every action to belittle other countries.
along those lines.
if you define it like that, i don't think it's possible to argue it against it. you've defined patriotism with blind, unwavering beliefs of superiority.
yeah, that's nationalism not patriotism, although they are not mutually exclusive.
i'm not sure that anybody can make a compelling argument that those particular things are good. i think the issue here is that people who think patriotism is good are referring to something qualitatively different than what you're referring to.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
artificial selection
Indicators:
what do you mean by "artificial selection"?
Negotiations:
are we "artificially selecting" humans? we are breeding animals and plants to get the most usefull properties, but we don't do this in anny way to humans.
there used to be slave breeding in america.
the nazis wanted to kill or sterilize anyone not "worthy" in their eyes of reproduction.
that is eugenics, not evolution.
which is a form of artificial selection.
which is not evolution
See entire sequence
Triggers:
god (2)
Indicators:
you have defined "god" as the force that caused the big bang. also, its not "god" as we traditionally know it, it could be two molecules making contact with each other.
how do you want people to argue against your personal definition?
Negotiations:
edited post to clarify that i believe the entity to be conscious and intentional in its insertion into our universe and subsequent cause of the big bang and our existence.
this is a very good point and has been raised elsewhere. i'm going to edit my post to clarify this fact. i do believe it to be a conscious entity and not just a force, or that was my original assumption in making this post.
edited to award ∆ for disproving my initial assumption in that i had too broadly defined the "entity" as a force.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
god (2)
Indicators:
if you define "god" widely enough, your view will be true by (your) definition.
Negotiations:
edited post to clarify that i believe the entity to be conscious and intentional in its insertion into our universe and subsequent cause of the big bang and our existence.
if you consider god to be "an entity or energy beyond our comprehension" and science says "we can't explain what was before the big bang or how it got there", then science is telling you that "before the big bang, whatever there was, is beyond our comprehension".
so i guess the clarifying question here would be: is there any way to change your view, or is it absolutely true based upon the definitions you're using? if so, then this will simply be a debate of semantics.
this has been raised elsewhere and is a valid point. i'm going to edit my post to clarify this fact. i do believe it to be a conscious entity and not just a force, or that was my original assumption in making this post.
edited to award ∆ for disproving my initial assumption in that i had too broadly defined the "entity" as a force.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
sex
Indicators:
it's not the act of sex we're talking about. we're talking about the existence of sexes. aka penis and vagina.
Negotiations:
i know. i was just trying to be funny, because what you wrote invites the transitive property.
you wrote: if sex is a social construct, then social construct is meaningless. then by the transitive property, you think sex is meaningless.
now even if you meant penises and vaginas, you still didn't say why you think they're meaningless.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
middle class (6)
Indicators:
middle class is a relative term: it's only a meaningfully distinct term in relation to two other classes. by trying to tie the definition of the term to some sort of concrete empirical reality (as opposed to a social reality), you're ignoring the relativity of the term.
Negotiations:
when people say that the middle class is shrinking, they're generally not using 'middle class' in the academic sense of the term (which is *purely* about social relations), or to talk about people who *identify* as middle class (as this has been increasing for over a century), but to mean people with incomes or occupations that they consider 'middle class'. whether this group is shrinking or expanding is purely a numerical thing, you can't really dispute it.
the problem with your view, then, is you're trying to tie the social sense of 'middle class' to some sort of purely numerical sense similar to 'middle income'.
[sta-cite]> but to mean people with incomes or occupations that they consider 'middle class'. whether this group is shrinking or expanding is purely a numerical thing, you can't really dispute it.
[end-cite]you can dispute their definitions of middle class and try to convince them that certain occupations or incomes are middle class despite their initial prejudice that those should be considered lower or upper class. indeed, i think this is what op is trying to do: claim that the numerical definition has changed and that comparing the size before/after the change reveals more about the definition than about incomes.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
middle class (10)
Indicators:
you seem to have a weird definition of middle class.
Negotiations:
humans always relate their situation to others, not on an absolute scale. by your way of thinking *no one* was "middle class" 100 years ago, even the very rich, and that's just kind of absurd.
middle class pretty much by definition means "near the median" (or to a lesser degree the mean). income distribution is just about the *only* thing that matters to whether the middle class is shrinking or growing. if most people are at the top and bottom, then the middle will be small.
that's what "middle" means. it's not a definition of a particular standard of living.
just wanted to point out that this isn't anywhere near most definitions of middle class: the 'middle class' is so called because they are between two other classes in a 3-class model, *not* because they are 'middle-income'.
culturally, when we refer to "the middle class" we typically have a certain standard of living in mind about what that means instead of a dollar amount. if we do have a dollar amount in mind, it very closely linked to the standard of living it would afford. [this business insider link](http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-class-in-every-us-state-2015-4) was provided by another redditor showing the state by state median income and defining middle class as earning 65-200% of that. i would argue that if you look at your state (assuming you are american) and look at the median income or lower bound, you would not feel that income would allow for our current cultural perception of a "middle class" standard of living.
it might be possible with a crippling amount of debt thanks to near zero interest rates, but there are signs that house of cards will come crashing down sooner than later. instead, i am suggesting that the median income would provide closer to the older definition of a middle class standard i provided, and those aspiring to the current standard of living are largely attempting to live an upper-middle class to wealthy lifestyle, and wondering why that "middle class" is shrinking.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
works
Indicators:
how do you define "works"?
Negotiations:
by works i mean is accepted by the masses and society as a valid system for running our country/economy.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
end their life (3)
choose to die
Indicators:
i'm assuming for this cmv you are talking about physician assisted suicide, many prisoners already commit suicide in prison by a variety of means.
Negotiations:
[sta-cite]>if you are talking about physician assisted suicide, why should prisoners have a right that the vast majority of the population does not?
[end-cite]yea i think physician assisted suicide could be a way, they could also hang or shoot the prisoner. so not just that.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
race
Indicators:
ethnic groups aren't pseudo-science, and 'race' is almost exclusively used to refer to ethnic groups in contemporary dialogue, so the point is a little semantically pedantic.
Negotiations:
wrongly, incorrectly, unscientifically used.
you are saying we shouldnt correct the wrongness because everyone is doing it that way, really, thats your response.
it has become synonymous with ethnic group, and has been that way for some time now. that is what race means, and it's a very correct usage. do you use 'awful' to mean good? do you call poor people 'naughty'? is a 'cheater' a collections officer of the king?
no. because although those used to be the 'correct' definitions, words mean what they are understood to mean. language literally isn't prescriptive, and i don't mean that figuratively, although it wouldn't be wrong to use literally that way.
[sta-cite]> it has become synonymous with ethnic group, and has been that way for some time now.
[end-cite][is-ought problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/is%e2%80%93ought_problem)
[sta-cite]>finally, there is nothing unscientific about ethnicity.
[end-cite]an [ethnic group](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ethnic_group) or ethnicity is a socially defined category of people who identify with each other based on common ancestral, social, cultural or national experience.[1][2] membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language and/or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, physical appearance, etc.
sure, nothing unscientific about ethnicity but curious, i dont see the word race in there...
[sta-cite]>these are different races
[end-cite]social conceptions and groupings of [races](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/race_(human_classification) vary over time, involving folk taxonomies[7] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. **scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete, and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.**
trust me or dont trust me that part doesnt matter, i have posted the science look it up yourself. please stop using race, its wrong, using it only creates more hate and ignorance.
where did i say ought? all i have said is that it is most broadly used, and therefore it is a correct usage. is-is. that was some shockingly obvious trainspotting, i'll ask that you actually read what i say instead of skimming through it trying, and failing, to find the keywords of logical fallacies. that's what gue is for, not cmv.
the only person prescribing language, saying that race ought to not mean what it means, is you. this is my central point. it isn't "unscientific" to use the word 'terrible' to refer to bad things, even though once upon a time it was synonymous to awful, which could mean greatly good.
instead of arguing against prejudice based on ethnicity (which is honourable and i assume your core intention), you're misguidedly arguing against ethnicity even existing, or having non-social components. if ethnicity doesn't exist, or has no non-social components, how can people base prejudice on it! it isn't a biologically classifying or taxonomic concept, but some babies aren't born black just by chance.
the rest of your argument skirted around my central point and continued to try and justify denial of the existence of any non-social component of ethnicity so i'll switch to that fully. show me the "science" (wikipedia is cute though) which says that genetically differentiated phenotype presentation (not biological essentialism/phrenology/eugenics, although my money is on you not knowing the difference) is imaginary and i'll consider your argument. until then you're still just making the wrong one.
the reason you didn't find a connection between race and ethnicity is because you deliberately avoided it. on the race wikipedia page (since this is an authority to you):
**starting from the 19th century**, the term was often used in ataxonomic sense to denote **genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[4][5][6]**
this is what people mean when they say race. this is what people understand when they hear race. it's not 1800s belgium where we invade the congo and believe eugenicists to help cope with the guilt. it's the 21st century and biological essentialism is done away with. 'race' still has meaning.
stop trying to change language and fight the actual problem: rac*ism*.
there seems to be some confusion. i am telling you race is not a scientific description and its use as a popular culture description causes hate and ignorance. would you like to agree, perhaps disagree with evidence that it is scientific or take the position of unknown.
i don't think you really understand what you're trying to say. race refers to genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype - is there some perceived absence of scientific content here? genetics is a field of science. phenotypes are things that exist in nature and can be scientifically examined. do you know what you mean by "unscientific", or is it just a non-declarative placeholder speech act you use when you have attitudes of aversion?
more importantly, even if "race" - whether you mean the word itself or the concept it refers to - *is* in some manner, shape, or form "unscientific" (whatever exactly that's supposed to mean) why is that significant? what generates the "we *ought* to not use the word race", when all you begin with is "the word race/the concept that the word race refers to *is* unscientific"? you're going from the "is" to the "ought" which is obviously quite ironic.
do you hold the position that race is a scientific descriptor? your answer should be framed as a "yes", "no" or "unknown". seriously, dont over think this one, just a one word answer. you know what, let me pull it out of this paragraph and restate, again, no tricks, just a simple one word answer is all that required. also, if you are worried about tricks go ahead and ask any questions you need, look up any references for clarification, just dont let it interfere with your response.
do you hold the position that race is an accepted scientific descriptor? your answer should be framed as a "yes", "no" or "unknown".
See entire sequence
Triggers:
good (5)
bad (7)
grey (4)
Indicators:
can you define what good, bad, and grey are? this seems to be a linguistics issue instead of philosophical.
Negotiations:
well good has different meanings but what i refer to is from a ethical and moraly point of view (my example above wasn't that great), so "good" can be defined as an action or thought that benefits the person/people recieving that action, yourself included (helping, donating, resting, etc), and that at the end it has a positive impact. "bad" is all the contrary, an action or thought that doesn't benefit the person/people reciving that action, including yourself and that at the end it has a negative impact on something or someone.
and i don't know what the grey could be
See entire sequence
Triggers:
love
loving
Indicators:
ah, bummer, i forgot that "love" is such a slippery term.
Negotiations:
there are for sure multiple forms of love, there is a concept that split the word into two core categories as love with or without attachment. googling "love without attachment" brings up a lot of interesting results. the idea is that usually when people say love, they mean with attachment, eg... i love cheese, i love my mother; you love these things because of some value or relationship to your ego, ergo your ego has a love for them. love without is considered the pure form of love, and it certainly doesn't come from the ego because it has no value associated with the object and the id has nothing to gain. it is possible to use the "without attchment" form for all the conscious beings we love with our ego, and old spirituality based beliefs tend to suggest that this is a healthier form of love.
for that reason, i think we may be talking about a different form of love, and i sincerely apologise for not being clearer by what i meant by this word.
"love without attachment" - to be completely without attachment is to have no relationship at all between the subject and object, between the lover and the loved...
i'm trying my best to imagine it... there is a sense in that i love everyone on earth in an abstract fashion - for what they represent, fellow humans who are alive and struggling to live and thrive - but that's because i share common values with them, being a human myself. so it's not without attachment or without relationship - and the proof would be that if i had to give my life (in some hypothetical battle with aliens!) so humanity could survive, i would.
to love without attachment - wouldn't that mean no action was required if their existence was threatened? love without action seems rather cold... and meaningless.
sometimes the phrase refers to letting someone you love be free of you: if she loves another man, and you know she will be better off with him, then maybe you let yourself disappear without a fuss from her life and love her from afar "without attachment". but that too is an action based on a relationship that cares for the state of her existence.
so love without attachment doesn't seem like a noble thing to me. what is noble or not noble would be the type of attachment, not the lack of.
this guy provides a description that seems [near enough correct for me](http://www.quora.com/is-it-possible-to-love-someone-without-attachment). so it is still with relationship, but you're not in that relationship for your own gain nor theirs, you are in a loving relationship at that moment with that being because you simply are. i tried to write an example, but it is long and might not help.
i'll just speak from personal experience. without the fear and need that comes with the ego, i can be much warmer, much more adventurous, and truly honest. i had trouble with all these things before. a close personal relationship with someone becomes a long set of amazing moments, each experience is new and amazing and i'm thankful every time, but once it is in the past, it is gone; i smile back fondly with warm memories of the past, but it does not dictate my next moment.
what you've described above is the far more social normative definition of warm/cold and love, but the other type of love works just as well using the same metrics when examining a personal relationship between two people.
the best thing about love without attachment is it enables a very effective way of loving yourself in a really honest manner.
i worry that this is starting to come off a bit preachy, if i was in your position i may have stopped reading by now. just two small notes. 1. you can try this form of love unto yourself as an experiment, it will take a little bit of mindful meditation to get to a state where your mind is sufficiently self-aware and enough of your directives are coming from the prefrontal cortex to do it, but it is pretty easy to achieve. 2. it can help in forming new relationships as people are naturally drawn to people that use this kind of approach to loving self-guidance, and it helps in avoiding bad relationships.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
compassion
Indicators:
this isn't a functional or desirable definition of compassion.
Negotiations:
i don't believe anyone who is not either mentally disturbed or deficient is actually capable of doing this, and i wouldn't want him to be.
are you able to explain why? i'm very open to criticism, but you'll need to give me a structured or demonstrative argument behind your belief.
am i able to explain why that's not the definition of compassion? i can explain what the definition of compassion actually is: "sympathetic concern for the sufferings and misfortunes of others."
sympathy isn't the same as compassionate empathy. i'd say that the dictionary isn't designed to handle philosophical topics and isn't of a lot of use in these situations.
it's not possible to discuss an idea, philosophical or otherwise, unless the persons doing so use the same language with the same standard set of definitions for each word in that language. if you don't want to use specific english words as defined in the english language dictionary, i'm pretty sure it'll be impossible for us to discuss any idea meaningfully.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
compassion
Indicators:
why does compassion need to be universal in your opinion? am i not compassionate for jumping in the water to save a drowning person, simply because i don't care as much about a bug on the other side of the world as i do them at that point?
Negotiations:
you can have more influence on the person in your immediate presence. i don't think it takes a very compassionate person to save someone from drowning, so i wouldn't say that makes you a compassionate person in general. it just makes you a person.
you didn't really address my question. why did you define compassion as being universal (all beings, equal amounts)? is it not possible to be compassionate to a (possibly very large) subset of beings?
your mind can only focus on a few at a time, the point is to show the some love and compassion to the person that robbed you and killed your dog as the person that supported you and helped you in a dark time.
you can't save everyone, you do the best you can. it doesn't mean you can't be compassionate towards all beings
i'm not saying that people can't be compassionate. i'm providing a counterpoint to, or asking questions about, op's view that you are not compassionate until you love every being everywhere to the maximum degree.
op is using 'compassion' in place of 'universal compassion'. what you're talking about is being selectively compassionate. both are types of compassion, it sounds to me like they were just defining their terms, or at least one of them
that's exactly the question i am asking of op. is he?
oh okay, i thought you were asking rhetorically to make a point. my b
See entire sequence
Triggers:
believing
reality
Indicators:
if you have a very narrow notion of the words 'reality' and 'believe', then i'm sure that's true
Negotiations:
i don't like the word belief or believe as they are defined. they are like assumptions. reality is a topic i hate talking about because it has no real answers as to what it is. it is always dependant on the experience of the user. i simply imagine reality as being defined as that which we perceive. since it is impossible to actually understand it any further without being outside of reality.
all words fall short though, all we can do is our best in using them to convey our meaning effectively
funny how language helps and hinders at the same time.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
resources (2)
Indicators:
doesn't definition of resource include availability?
Negotiations:
someone picking blueberries or nursing their own child is not making these goods and services available to other people, so the person is not increasing gdp with these activities.
if someone is picking blueberries then we're talking about an available resource. even if it's on the person's own property, it's still part of the large economy because it's part of that person's wealth. and the act of picking blueberries does have an effect on the economy, even if in the negative. in this case, the person's demand for blueberries is not provided by the market so it has an effect on the price of blueberries available to other people, who may not have access to wild blueberries.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
investments
Indicators:
we are possibly using different definitions of investment.
Negotiations:
i am talking from an economic perspective, where investment is the allocation of resources towards increaseing the quantity of quality of production factors. so buying an house as part of a speculative bubble (ie what happened in 2007) would not fall under my definition of investment, but would be a use for savings.
your definition seems to preclude investments that don't pan out, which is ridiculous. buying a house is always an investment. you are contributing to the economy by paying people in the housing industry - builders, upkeep, real estate sales, etc. the hope is that by owning the property and contributing to the development of the surrounding community, your home will literally create value. this may or may not be the case for you, but surely having society as a whole operate with the idea that investments can create value is what drives the economy in the big picture (which is what you seem to be after).
See entire sequence
Triggers:
science
Indicators:
this is *not* the definition of science and is in fact the *opposite* of the definition of science.
Negotiations:
science only studies things which *can* be seen (albeit not necessarily with the eye but things which can be reliably measured) not things which cannot be. you've named science as the only thing which is specifically outside the purview of science. you're demonstrating an innate bias against science to try to shoehorn this not only false but downright deceitful definition onto it and progress from there.
sorry i should have been specific, belief based on evidence is basically the definition of science. as you said, not everything can be studied with the eye, but you can use science in both cases.
nope, wrong again. science is not a belief system. scientists don't believe in things based on evidence, they contend that certain explanations of how things work are most likely based on available evidence. it may seem like semantics but it is a very important distinction. the only thing that scientists could be said to believe in is that the universe is fundamentally explicable. however even this belief (while it is probably held by many scientists since humans are given to this sort of sentiment) is not necessary for science. it is sufficient to simply define science as the study of things which can be explained. that is, while religion fundamentally depends on belief of some sort, science does not. want to have a third shot at misrepresenting what science is?
there is no need to be a prick about it. i am not "misrepresenting" science. what you described is literally what belief means. it's not even semantics, you are simply saying i'm wrong just for the sake of saying it. if you think something to be true, you believe it to be true. it does depend in belief, because that's the whole basis. in science, we attempt to explain something by offering an explanation based on evidence, then we find more evidence and try to determine if our hypothesis is true or not. we believe, at least at the time, that the hypothesis is true and reasonable, and if it disproven, oh well, time to find another believable explanation.
it is not self fulfilling if it is proven to be written before the event happened and the circumstances were not put into place by the author.
yes, one definition of belief can be used to describe any general acceptance of something regardless of what the basis of that acceptance is, but to claim that that sense of belief applies to science and religion in the same way is equivocating. the basis of science is *not* belief. the basis of science is repeatable, observable evidence.
quite frankly he's right and you are misrepresenting what science means, and you continue to do so after being corrected.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
dogma (2)
dogmatic
Indicators:
i'm not sure you understand the definition of "dogmatic".
Negotiations:
it means to assert opinions in an arrogant manner or to be heavily opinionated and not listen to reason. threatening someone is not dogmatic. on top of that, fire and brimstone preaching is not condoned in the bible itself. the consequences are mentioned, but we are to believe based on evidence, not because of a threat. you cannot change the definition of dogmatic because this issue has (possible) harsher consequences than you want to think about. because something is (possibly) important does not make it dogmatic. the verse you provided says nothing about believing without evidence and definitely nothing about arrogance being a good thing.
speaking of definitions (hey, you brought it up) i'm not sure *you* understand the definition of "dogmatic". you're doing it right now. i'm supposed to take it on faith that you have evidence and yet you repeatedly refuse to present any. if you're making the claim that religion is not dogmatic then yes, you absolutely 100% have to convince me on religion, or at least convince me that there is some sort of evidence that is compelling and does more than pay lip service to the concept of evidence so that people can pretend religion is not dogmatic. until then you're just being dogmatic.
[sta-cite]>i'm not sure you understand the definition of "dogmatic". it means to assert opinions in an arrogant manner or to be heavily opinionated and not listen to reason. threatening someone is not dogmatic.
[end-cite]no, you clearly do not know what you're talking about. you obviously don't want to believe that religion is dogmatic so you have invented a more strict definition and added aspects like arrogance.
here's the real definition of dogmatic:
[sta-cite]>prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group
[end-cite][sta-cite]>a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle
[end-cite]so as much as you don't want to believe religion is dogmatic, it very literally is.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
equally
Indicators:
hmm... what do you mean by absorbing everything equally? that it will absorb the same percentage of each frequency?
Negotiations:
yes.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
colors (4)
color (4)
Indicators:
the whole point of communication is to get a point across. this means that different communities define things differently in a way that suits their own needs. when artists talk about a painting needing more colour, other artists will intuitively know that this means add colours that are not black or white.
Negotiations:
if they all assumed "colour" included black and white that conversation would be way more confusing for everyone involved.
if your day to day life involves talking about colour all the time, you should have an established definition of what counts as a colour so everyone's on the same page. at the end of the day it doesn't matter, it's just to ensure proper communication.
so when they say things like that, it's just an arbitrary distinction that has been made for their sake. not sure if i've changed your view, but maybe i've atleast shown you why they would do that, and why it's okay to do that
so you're saying that artists' 'colour' is everyone else's 'hue' or kinda like the saturation setting in photoshop?
err maybe? can't say i'm familiar enough with photoshop to say
See entire sequence
Triggers:
succeed
success
Indicators:
the problem with this is that youre measuring sucess as being in the top 1%.
Negotiations:
unless we changed to a communistic utopian society then there are always be a wealth gap. there are plenty of lesser goals that you can achieve and still consider yourself successful.
everyone measures wealth as success or we wouldn't keep count.
if there is score it is a competition and therefore someone has to be winning.
i'm working hard at making just enough money to open my own business, probably slip back into poverty but have grand adventures along the way.
i'll feel way more sucessful when i'm following my dreams than i'm currently feel with my relatively high income.
if wealth is the only thing that matters, then yes i suppose bill gates is the only person that is "winning". that doesn't mean that the other 7 billion people are all "losing", or that hard work doesn't move you along the scale of wealth in meaningful ways.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
proud
Indicators:
how are you proud ?! it wasn't a choice, and not an achievement. is that "pride" ? or "normal" ?
Negotiations:
i am as proud of being a man as i am of being a member of my family. i didn't choose to be a **[surname redacted]** either, but i am one. my name was given to me by my father who got it from his, going back centuries (my name means smith).
being a man gives me certain traits. i'm bigger than my girlfriend, so i carry heavy things. i've been raised by a society who doesn't give one tiny shit about men, so i am strong enough to carry not only my burdens, but the burdens of my loved ones. whether it's the courage to be the one to kill that spider, or the empathy to be the one who secretly catches it and moves him to behind the drier because it's too cold for him to survive outside.
and i absolutely exude my pride in being a man. it's the last day of movember and for the month, i grew my beard and for the last week, [i'm rocking this.](http://i.imgur.com/yhdehuq.jpg)
now the tricky part comes when there's the subtlety of "i am a man, so i do things that are hard, it is my place. women can do hard things, too, but when nobody is around it falls to me." kind of a duty vs opportunity thing.
first of all. congratulations on the beard. that is a legitimate thing to be proud of. because it is situational. :) you are proud you can help people. you are proud of what you can do. of your role in society based on your hard work and merits.
but does your hearth feel with joy when you remember about the spider thing, or the times you were able to help, like when you remember that you are part of the "penis group" ? :) have you ever wept about it ?
well yes on both counts.
i'm really proud to be a man. a huge portion of my life has been influenced by just that single fact.
but again... "i've been raised by a society who doesn't give one tiny shit about men" so i have to carry that with me. i mean, on reddit alone there are thousands of people who actively deny there are any drawbacks to being a man.
i mean... yes. it's absolutely arbitrary whether i was born a boy or a girl, just like it's arbitrary if you were born black or chinese or american or swiss. but these things *are* a huge part of your life, whether you embrace or reject them. and while there are people who will look down on canadians or eskimos, most people are just making the best of what they've got.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
marriage (2)
marriages (2)
Indicators:
if your premise is that marriage is a system existing primarily to bestow benefits on groups of people for choosing to mingle their assets and co-habitate, i would disagree.
Negotiations:
when a friend tells me that they're getting married, it's a joyous occasion, likely to be followed by celebration. celebration of joint tax returns to come, or shared health benefits? i really don't think that's it.
marriage, in modern society, is viewed as a deeply meaningful symbolic gesture of love and commitment. that's the part i value. the laws and benefits could all go out the window, and i honestly don't believe our society would be much the worse for it (though obviously there would be a fair bit of legislative reworking to be done).
but then you don't need the government at all. just get a marriage ceremony done by any religious or secular organization to celebrate that love and commitment. you can already do that. you do not need the government to give you permission to enter into an official civil marriage if you don't even value the laws and benefits that come with it.
well there are a few laws that feel important to me, in regards to the sharing of assets, hospital visits, inheritance and the like. and as /u/pepperonifire pointed out, there are thousands of references to marital status built into us law, it would be impractical to ignore them.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
free will (2)
Indicators:
that's not really free will.
Negotiations:
so at it's most basic, sin is disobedience to god, right? so if you remove sin from humans, you remove their capacity to disobey. making them nothing but servants.
part of choosing is being able to choose wrong.
or god might abstain from issuing edicts, thereby removing the ability of man to sin while preserving "free will".
but i anticipated this argument in the comment you're replying to: did god violate my will by designing me in such a fashion that i cannot walk through walls or fly? if not, why not? it might indeed be my will to do those things, but god has sorely disappointed me in these respects. has he not thwarted elements of my will then?
so god might not have created us, thereby giving us free will? what?
free will doesn't mean you get whatever you want. it's not freaking omnipotence. free will is being able to make choices and attempt to fulfill them. you wanting to fly is choice, and an exercise of free will. being able to actually fly, however, is another matter entirely.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
evil
Indicators:
here's the thing: you've constructed a definition for the word that can't really be logically refuted, since people are not purely one thing. you accept that people have different definitions for evil, but you insist an applying a single connotation wherein the word is used in its most extreme, unrealistic sense.
Negotiations:
with these standards, of course there is no literal evil in the world - just people who perform actions, some of which are so terrible that people are impelled to apply the only word they deem suitable.
if "evil" is used to describe certain people or actions, then functionally, it does exist. it exists in the way it which it is applied. if most people would agree that a person or event is evil, then that's what evil is equated with: a person or event deemed bad/harmful/negative to that given extent. what's the point of insisting that evil *must* be some metaphysical, pure source outside the realm of human capability? or, if you are only defining it as such for the purpose of this argument, why? i think most people (and certainly most people here) would agree that humans are not purely good or evil, so what's the point in strawmanning such an argument?
it seems like a more suitable cmv would be something akin to "i believe there are no supernatural forces behind our actions" or "i do not believe in the devil" or "i believe every person in history has some redeeming qualities" - all claims that could be more precisely argued in relation to the idea of evil. but you're arguing the validity of an abstract concept, and you're arguing against a meaning that is not necessarily how it is used or received by a significant portion of people.
i agree, that in the format of cmv - i should have chosen a more focused topic. i will absolutely take your council into account in any future topics i create. thank-you for bringing this to mind.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
inductive reasoning (5)
Indicators:
inductive reasoning isn't an authority. it is a method.
Negotiations:
the authority in the appeal to authority fallacy is always a person. it isn't a fallacy to say, "2+2=4" because mathematics is an "authority".
however, the bigger problem with your question is that inductive reasoning is not about "making predictions of the future", although it can be. inductive reasoning is a method for reaching probable conclusions. but, deductive reasoning yields conclusions that are necessarily true. did you perhaps mean deductive reasoning?
no i did mean inductive reasoning. making predictions that are probably true.
[sta-cite]> no i did mean inductive reasoning
[end-cite]then i just find that odd. why would you choose inductive over deductive reasoning?
also, do you have a response to my comment that inductive reasoning is a method, not an "authority"?
[sta-cite]> making predictions that are probably true.
[end-cite]again, inductive reasoning is not necessarily about "making predictions about the future". for example:
all the gingers i have ever met were over six feet tall
bob is a ginger
therefore, bob is over six feet tall
the state of bob's height is not a future event.
it doesn't have to be a future event - although i am not sure why the temporal location of an event or observation matters.
we are extrapolating "prior" to "post", that's all.
well, it was your op that said "making predictions of the future". future denotes temporal location.
please respond to the point that a method is not an "authority" for purposes of the appeal to authority fallacy.
it depends on what kind of inductive reasoning you're speaking of. if you're talking about the general concept of science, inductive reasoning is based on the assumption that the universe exists and has at least some uniform rules that it's possible for us to discover.
with this assumption, each observation gives additional evidence that can justify a belief that we understand these actually existing uniform rules. knowledge is generally considered to be "justified true belief", so inductive reasoning can increase knowledge.
this assumption could be wrong, but it's a different assumption than that a fallible human being can be right about a lot of things without being right about everything.
ironically, the reason appeal to authority is a fallacy is that we have a vast body of evidence that humans often are right about many things, but wrong about other things. one might even consider that to be a uniform rule that applies consistently. there's never been an example of a human being that was right about everything.
i don't know if you can authoritatively make that claim, but i don't think it is necessarily relevant here.
one doesn't have to expect a person to be right about everything to expect them to be right about a few things.
that's fine.
my point is that inductive knowledge about laws that you presume to be universal and unchanging is entirely different from appealing on one topic to the authority of a human being that has been right about some other things in the past.
it's especially egregious when the things the authority was right about before have nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is when that fallacy usually comes into play.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
fag
Indicators:
fag means harley riders? really? is that a term among motorcycle riders? i didn't know that.
Negotiations:
its a south park refrence
See entire sequence
Triggers:
censorship (7)
censored
Indicators:
that's not censorship, that's business.
Negotiations:
[sta-cite]>boycotting a company because a head of theirs thinks things you don't like and arresting someone for the same reason is just as bad (they both threaten a persons livelihood), and if you do one you are welcoming the other
[end-cite]completely untrue. take brendan eich, for example. let's say i decide that i no longer what to support his business due to that. i don't owe him my support. if my not buying his products "threatens" his livelihood, than he should have run a better business. i'm not shutting down his ability to speak his mind, nor am i restricting his freedom of speech in any way. i'm simply choosing not to buy/use the product.
if he had been arrested for his speech, sure. if a crowd of angry people attacked him, that would be wrong. if people tried to take property that was his over that, again wrong. speech and actions, just like everything else, has consequences, though. if you (or anyone else) becomes a liability to your employer, they we fire you or ask you to resign. his "speech" (in the form of his donations) made him a liability to the company, and they cut him loose.
yes, forcibly silencing someone's speech is wrong, but declining to support it is not silencing it. both individuals you mentioned were not censored, their respective employers simply judged that they were now a liability to the company. as such, they were removed, limiting that liability.
they were fired in an attempt to censor them, after people complained and whined in a childish manor to their employers because they don't like the persons opinions so they punish that person the only way they know how, get them fired
jd2020 was also just fired and censored for supporting free speech and opposing censorship
i'm not even sure what you mean here. i seriously doubt anybody "whined to their employers" about the actions of the above named people. what they did do was make it clear that they would not choose to give money to an organization that employs racists or bigots. it's their money, and they have every right to choose who they give their money to. the companies involved (mozilla and the nba, respectively) decided that employing people who were publicly seen to hold racist or bigoted opinions would hurt their business, so they acted to correct that.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
gender (2)
Indicators:
that's not gender, that's sex.
Negotiations:
i'm fine with sex categories existing, i just don't think gendered behaviors and attitudes should be attached to them.
but don't the two massively overlap when you hit things like clothes? what would the female-sex clothes look like if gender didn't exist? wouldn't they look vaguely similar, wouldn't that be telling about the traits expected of people who wear those clothes and then don't we just get back to gender again? don't we end up just shoving all the generalised personality traits onto sex rather than gender - we end up loosing the difference in language.
edit: submitted before i meant to.
currently we have a situation where a person can have the female sex but be a boy. if we take out that second bit as in the person is female (sex) but then nothing. how do we target this person via advertisement? we have to have vague clusters of people to target that we attribute vague likes and dislikes (the youth like x, old people like y) now we're no longer discriminating by gender - so it must be sex. well the female sex likes floral patterns - boom some floral blouses for women. but no gender. but its the same.
perhaps these things need to become more specific. couldn't you find it stifling if assumed your race all enjoyed a certain food? why discriminate at all?
there's a strong correlation between physical sex and gender, and some broad strokes we can draw in regards to the body types of the sexes. but when has it ever been a good idea to lump the outliers in with the majority? shouldn't the goal be to give everyone equal value, even if you don't conform to the standard?
well i mean clothing and gender is very different to race. clothing is fitted to certain body shapes. as soon as you produce a top with a cut for a waist and boobs you're clearly targeting the female sex. at the moment these clothes also target the female gender which may or may not correlate with sex. if we loose gender we loose the distinction: this clothing is now for the female sex only. well now it's the same thing as before, now sex is just standing in for gender. if anything its more oppressive as now, rather than having the distinction between sex and gender, we only have one thing to target and design for: sex. at the moment we can understand that some sex-males will want to wear girl-gender clothes and accommodate for that. but if we don't have the distinction then the sex-male only has sex-male clothes because gender doesn't exist. he is his sex: he doesn't have boobs and a waist.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
arguing semantics
Indicators:
that's not what people mean when they are talking about a "semantic argument."
Negotiations:
when people use that term, they mean that rather than debating the merits of the point that the person was making, they are instead fixating on how it was phrased and the minor technicalities of what they were saying. at the right time, this is important and productive. but much of the time, and almost always in /r/changemyview, a semantic argument is a tool people use to distract from the *real* point.
[sta-cite]>that's not what people mean when they are talking about a "semantic argument."
[end-cite]i understand this. but i'm saying it is a misuse of the term semantics, and i think they should say something else like, your argument is just trying
[sta-cite]>to distract from the real point.
[end-cite]i'm looking for something that would convince me to accept that using the term semantics in a way that contradicts itself is justifiable.
this is ironic, and i am not trying to be a jerk, but right now you are making a semantic argument. this might get confusing!
basically, the point is that calling out an argument that distracts from the point is a cop-out. whether or not you call that "semantics" doesn't really matter.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
competition
Indicators:
one thing i want to point out first is that "competition" when it comes to roads is a rather nebulous concept.
Negotiations:
i mean think about what we're actually talking about here. this isn't a *product* where anyone can just come on the scene and start competing...this is the limited physical space in the country. think about highway 1. it goes from the canadian border, all the way down the west coast to mexico. now if someone wanted to be a "competitor" for this, they would have to take that *same* amount of land essentially next to the existing highway, cover it in asphalt, etc. and what if a third competitor wanted to come on the scene? all of this all over again? this would be true for every road in the country, and it would consist of having half a dozen identical roads all going to the same places, essentially covering the entire country in a asphalt just to be able to say we have competing roads. it doesn't really seem practical.
but ignoring the logistical difficulties for the moment, competition is thought to be a benefit because it produces the lowest most efficient price for something to be offered at. but considering what your objection is, do we *want* the lowest price? i thought you wanted to discourage driving unnecessarily, and if that's the case, we want to artificially *increase* the price from its lowest threshhold to a higher deterrant rate. if that's what we want, that brings us back to just making everything a toll road with whatever price was necessary to achieve this.
for your first part: we don't have any of those issues with the railways. i don't see why highways would be any different.
i'm not sure if you've had any experience with the rail system in the us, specifically freight rail, but it really sucks. costs are continually rising, service is terrible, and they really don't care about the individual costomer at all. there isn't any competition because there is only one company that services an end user in a given area.
i don't really see how this situation wouldbe any different for highways. why would a second highway be built to serve an area that already has one?
[sta-cite]> for your first part: we don't have any of those issues with the railways. i don't see why highways would be any different.
[end-cite]
except, y'know, we absolutely do. railways are underutilized and relatively overpriced with very little competition because breaking into the market is such a huge investment and the majority of the population doesn't see them as a viable option.
well there are a few problems with the comparison to railroads. many of the rail systems are government owned, but even among the private railways, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the road system. first, how many competing railway tracks do you really see anyway? do you ever see multiple rail lines with tracks going on the same route? even if we could say that *all* rail lines did, the rail system is a very spread out setup with isolated stretches of track. that's not what we're dealing with when it comes to roads. think if every road in the vicinity around where you live were proposed to have another road added to "compete" with it. where would it even be put?? i don't know where you live, but imagine trying to do it in manhattan where every square inch of space is occupied. even if you had the room for it, you would *want* to double or triple the amount of land covered in asphalt, eliminating its use for anything else? all just so we can say that we have "competition" to roads that seemed to be functioning just fine as it is?
if you mean having rights of way that are literally right next to each other then no. it's more likely they'd work out some kind of track-sharing agreement. if you mean parallel rail lines serving close-by if not the same towns/cities then yes, you do see some parallel going on the same route. in b.c. you can see the canadian pacific railway and the canadian national railway going parallel most of their routes until they reach alberta.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
computer science (4)
cs (2)
computer scientists
Indicators:
sure, but i would argue that that's not cs, especially when you think about 'pure' computer science.
Negotiations:
cs curricula often contain things that aren't pure cs. math majors often take classes about applications of the math they're learning. those classes aren't pure math, they're taken because of math's practical applications. what i'm arguing is that the things we consider pure cs are not a science.
[sta-cite]> from the outside you see a lot of test tubes and trials, but all these trials and experiments really are is busywork to verify that the theories and the mechanisms that biologists are researching are valid. computer scientists do the same thing through constructing their own digital mechanisms either for algorithms, computer security, etc.
[end-cite]the difference is how they go about verifying their hypotheses.
alice is a biologist, who thinks abc is the cause of phenomena def.
bob is a computer scientist who believes that the xyz conjecture is true.
alice devises an experiment to see if she is right. her results will verify her hypothesis.
bob devises a proof (or counter-proof) of the xyz conjecture. no experiment was ever done.
that's the important difference for me. you don't experiment in cs, you prove. and that in my mind makes it not a science, it makes it a math.
do you do cs research? because unless a **ton** of us who call ourselves cs people aren't actually cs people then you are wrong. go read a bunch of cs papers and you will find loads of experiments. absolutely loads of them. some conferences are more "proofy" and some conferences are more "experimenty" but go check out some papers in icse or icst (a testing conference! so much for the idea that testing isn't cs) or chi (the list goes on and on) and you will see lots of experimental work.
i don't doubt you, but could you give me some examples of the type of papers that involve experiments? i gave the icst website a cursory glance but i couldn't find where they're hiding their papers. what sorts of things in cs require experiments?
i'm on mobile right now so i'll send some later. i'll try to grab them where they aren't pay walled.
thanks
See entire sequence
Triggers:
actually means
Indicators:
i don't understand the concept.
what does a word "actually mean"?
Negotiations:
my understanding is that a word 'actually means' *what most people mean when they say it*. any other definition requires some sort of extrinsic authority capable of declaring and enforcing an 'actual meaning' which derives from *what* exactly?
it's not so much a matter of what the word means as what the person means. even if we agree that no string of letters or sounds has any objective meaning, the problem here is that two different concepts are being used interchangeably.
sure, and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to call out that the word is being used to mean different things. where i get twitchy is when someone starts claiming that their meaning is "right" and the other guy's meaning isn't.
[sta-cite]> a word 'actually means' what most people mean when they say it.
[end-cite]i completely agree.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
zero-sum (3)
Indicators:
no it isn't. it doesn't even remotely resemble it.
zero-sum means that for someone to gain, someone else has to lose.
Negotiations:
and in this case, it's a zero sum argument because they said that because the wealthy are gaining more, there's nothing left for the others to make.
except that that bears no resemblance to their actual statement, i.e. that a large part of the population is effectively shut out of the opportunity to hold lucrative jobs.
poor people make a little more money if they work hard than if they don't, and rich people make a lot more money if poor people work hard than if they don't. that's not zero-sum, but it is unjust.
[sta-cite]> i.e. that a large part of the population is effectively shut out of the opportunity to hold lucrative jobs.
[end-cite]the actual statement was that because one person holds a lucrative job that means that someone else can't. or because one person makes lots of money, there's less for someone else to earn. that's a zero sum argument plain and simple.
from the original comment being responded to:
[sta-cite]>when you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is *less* wealth that it left to go to everyone else.
[end-cite]i added the less in italics because it's clear that the original author inadvertantly left it out. but that's a zero sum argument in almost it's purest form.
> from the original comment being responded to:
>
[sta-cite]>>when you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is less wealth that it left to go to everyone else.
[end-cite]as i said below, one out of three.
the statement "part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen" can just as readily be interpreted as saying that the main problem with wealth inequality isn't the inequality per se, but the lack of lucrative jobs for most people. you don't have to believe in a complete zero-sum economy to recognize that some aspects of the economy are rivalrous.
of course, it's not just jobs. given the stock of real wealth that exists at any moment, it really is zero-sum that whatever someone owns, everyone else doesn't. and people make lots of money by already owning stuff, not only by directly receiving interest and dividends but also by having collateral to borrow when they want to start a business, and by being able to make speculative financial investments if they have any information that's of value to the financial markets. you can have an inflated view of how much income comes from already owning stuff, without believing in a complete zero-sum economy.
[sta-cite]> the statement "part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen"
[end-cite]that statement by itself i would agree means what you say it does. but in context with the one i quoted, really seems more to be zero sum thinking. that every dollar that a rich person has is less that's available for other people.
[sta-cite]>you can have an inflated view of how much income comes from already owning stuff, without believing in a complete zero-sum economy.
[end-cite]but that income that comes from already owning stuff has zero negative impact on anyone else's ability to make money. in fact, given that we're talking about investments, it actually helps in that it's providing capital for businesses to expand or start.
sta-cite]> because part of backlash against wealth inequality is that there isn't money to be made for the average or poor citizen
[end-cite]this is zero-sum.
[sta-cite]> when you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is wealth that it left to go to everyone else.
[end-cite]thats zero-sum.
[sta-cite]> this is especially bad when the wealthy horde that money in bank accounts and don't spend it (put it back into the economy).
[end-cite]this is also zero-sum.
ok, this one actually is, sort of.
[sta-cite]>when you have increasing amounts of wealth going to a small group, that means there is wealth that it left to go to everyone else.
[end-cite]still, one out of three ain't good.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
consentually (2)
consentual
consent (2)
Indicators:
the basic problem you seem to have is a complete lack of understanding of what "consent" is.
Negotiations:
it's not the mere act of saying "yes". a child can say "yes" to sex, even enthusiastically, but that's not consent because they *lack the capability to understand what they are consenting to*.
a mentally ill person that is incapable of understanding what is happening due to a delusion is similarly not able to consent.
if you point a gun at someone and they say "yes", clearly they aren't consenting because they were coerced. but the same goes for a boss insisting their assistant have sex with them or they lose their job. arguing that they could have said "no" isn't going to fly.
so, yes, if a person gets drunk and they *actually* consent, as in the have both the capability to understand why they are doing, and they aren't being coerced, i would agree that it is not rape.
the problem is that, voluntarily drunk or not, sufficiently drunk people simply lack the capability to validly consent, because they aren't able to understand what is going on. them saying "yes" is no more meaningful than a child saying "yes".
and one last thing: regardless of the legality or ethics involved, it's incredibly dangerous to have sex with someone that might be "blackout drunk", because they won't remember consenting, whether they did or not, and whether your view is "correct" or not.
imagine the position that you'd be in, having had sex with them that they *genuinely* don't remember consenting to. you're going to have a hell of a time convincing a jury of your story when they are absolutely genuine when they claim not to have consented, and it's your word against theirs, especially if you *do* remember what you were doing and are arguing from the moral low ground of having done the asshole thing of having sex with someone too drunk to understand what was happening.
i understand what consent is, i used "say yes" to simplify it and not have to explain every single way consent can happen. but a drunk person can give consent even if they don't understand what's going on.
also, while yes, a child giving consent isn't very meaningful, if a two year old dropped a knife on my head, they shouldn't be punished because they aren't old enough and don't know what they're doing. but if someone's drunk enough and gets pissed off and shoots me, they would be arrested. they are old enough. sex is more complex than "just don't kill someone", which is why it would be better to wait until they're an adult instead of when you can understand murder.
and if someone doesn't remember whether or not they are consenting, and the other one can prove they did consent, then it isn't rape. they consented.
if it can't be proven that they did or didn't consent, it'd be like any other crime that there isn't enough evidence for, as it should be. unfortunately if it was rape, they would be set free, but if a serial killer cannot be proven guilty, they'd be set free, and most people i know consider murder to be more terrible than rape, and i'm sure those who don't at least put it up really damn high on their lists of heinous crimes.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
purpose (2)
Indicators:
this is like saying that the purpose of a surgeon is to cut people open. it's a description of a large part of what a surgeon does, but that's not the same as purpose.
are you sure that purpose is the thing you're trying to argue here?
Negotiations:
the surgeon can't say that their purpose is achieved just by virtue of taking a scalpel to the patient.
same goes for the military. killing people and breaking things is a means to an end, not an end in its own right. the military can't say "we killed people and broke things. mission accomplished." if the desired political objective hasn't been met.
yeah, you're right. while a surgeon mostly cuts people up, that's a means to an end. it's not his job, or his purpose. therefor, to say the purpose of the military is killing people is a near miss, a simplification that simplifies too far. &#8710;
See entire sequence
Triggers:
magical thinking
Indicators:
that's definition i think is too specific for what i would call "magical thinking".
Negotiations:
silent prayer would fall under that definition, i think. i think magical thinking is anything that involves the use of what could be called "magical" - santa clause, the afterlife, the belief a creature can be born with the power to create a universe.
i don't hear this explanation often, but all may be possible with technologies that would seem like magic to us now - robotics, an advance computer simulation that downloads human consciousness', and some other technology.
the reason magical thought is widely seen as wrong is because it causes problems. if you rub crocodile teeth on bananas they won't actually grow faster. requesting things of god doesn't really fit into that, or meditating on god. making some sort of bargain with god or a spirit or gods or whatever, and religious often comment that you shouldn't pressure god into doing things for you.
nsfw
http://oglaf.com/leverage/
this is not appropriate behaviour to a god in most religions for example.
you can expand the definition, but then i'm not going to see it as harmful, because they're not expecting the universe to behave differently because of their thoughts. i know you think of any sort of supernatural belief as magical thinking, but that's not the common definition and it includes things which aren't harmful so why should i care? live and let live.
"http://oglaf.com/leverage/
this is not appropriate behavior to a god in most religions for example"
while that is hilarious, i haven't found that to be true about most religious people. most go on to believe many things i would call "magical". psychics, palm readers, horoscopes, and astrology. stuff like that. although not necessarily the things i mentioned.
these are things i would consider "magical".
they are magical.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
war on terror (4)
Indicators:
well that is not what the phrase "war on terror" means. you are purposefully miscommunicating if you are making up new definitions to common phrases.
Negotiations:
meh, i don't really care. when the cartel dismember a bunch of kids and send them to their families, that's pretty terrifying to me. when buddhist extremist burn down houses with muslim families in them, that's scary too. war on crime, war on cartel, war on fear, war on terror, it feels the same to me. the only differences are the enemies and the names politicians use to label them.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
original
Indicators:
however, if you see a tattoo based on deathly hallows, and that inspires you to create a very different deathly hallows tattoos that fits your style, how is that unoriginal?
Negotiations:
[sta-cite]> it's not about inspiration in itself. it's about getting inspiration from other tattoos or straight up copying tattoos.
[end-cite]yes, "straight up copying tattoos" is unoriginal.
for example, if i see this tattoo: http://36.media.tumblr.com/c2d86cf9a0f92c1d9c159d2aa661e00b/tumblr_n3pz0wrl1b1sclg5bo1_1280.jpg
and it inspires me to create this tattoo:
http://cdn2.thegloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/dumbledore-quote-harry-potter-tattoo.jpg
it is still very original.
∆
fair enough. i'm still not wholly convinced though. you only covered about being inspired by something and turning it into something similar, but completely different.
there's still the fact that some people see a tat only to have one done without much alteration, if any.
thanks for the delta.
[sta-cite]>i'm still not wholly convinced though.
[end-cite]your cmv was:
"i believe being **inspired by** other tattoos makes you unoriginal"
not
"i believe being copying other tattoos without much alteration makes you unoriginal"
those are two different views.
thanks for the delta.
[sta-cite]>i'm still not wholly convinced though.
[end-cite]your cmv was:
"i believe being **inspired by** other tattoos makes you unoriginal"
not
"i believe being copying other tattoos without much alteration makes you unoriginal"
those are two different views.
again, fair enough.
i don't think i'll start another thread though.
thanks
See entire sequence
Triggers:
product
Indicators:
not if "the product" means the idea in his mind and not the copies.
Negotiations:
interfering with the creator's notes or thoughts, for example, would be unjust. but copying his work creates something that is not "their product." in general english, "product" can mean "the result of" or "something made or grown to be sold." one meaning confers ownership, the other doesn't.
as for the rest, it seems that we have a disagreement about whether the ideas are the same thing or not. but how can ideas be different depending on whose mind they are in? is the english language that i speak different than yours? is democracy different for me than what it is for you, if we both interpret it in exactly the same way, give it the same definition etc? if you interpret an idea differently, then that's another thing. but if you interpret it differently in our case, it won't be the same product but it will be just two similar products, one of which was inspired by the other, and i'm absolutely fine with that. but we are talking about taking the idea and creating essentially the same product, meaning that you have interpreted it in exactly the same way. can you prove that then the ideas are different? because the person who copied the idea didn't actually create anything , they just stored the original in their memory.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
belief
Indicators:
where do they mention faith or religion in any way? they use the word believe, sure, but belief is hardly unique to religion.
Negotiations:
i can believe that my parents never lied to me; that's not a religious view.
because it is a strongly held belief without, or in opposition to the evidence. that is the definition of a faith based belief. you don't need faith if you have evidence.
to say something is "religiously believed" doesn't require actual formal religious doctrine. it is a common phrase in english.....
that just means they believe something. again, that doesn't make it religious.
i am sorry you are not well versed in this common english phrase.
here is a dictionary to help you out: http://dictionary.reference.com/
i think it's odd that you use poor grammar to lecture me about the use of language.
but it isn't odd that you didn't add any substance to comment, in fact it is typical for people to get nitpicky when they are wrong.
i can edit my post... are you willing to edit your beliefs?
are you willing to answer every question i posed to you in the very first comment instead of only insisting that the op has a religious belief? are you willing to tell me how it's only and specifically religious to have a belief that isn't backed up by a specific fact? is it religious to say "i believe that america will be around in 500 years" or "i believe that my parents love me" or "i believe that things will turn out all right"?
are you willing to actually discuss things instead of just downvoting people for disagreeing with you? i doubt it. have the last comment if you like, and a nice day.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
conflict of interest
Indicators:
but they are paying for the government so this is not technically a conflict of interest.
Negotiations:
it is a problem, though. however, the top 1% pay slightly half of the taxes, so would not be in full control. also people tend to have interests not based on their income level, but based on which of the many competing industries they are part of, so the 1% would certainly not be a unified vote based on income level.
[sta-cite]> but they are paying for the government so this is not technically a conflict of interest.
[end-cite]how do you figure? using money to control something that shouldn't be for sale in the first place is a perfect example of conflict of interest. the purpose of a representative government is to represent the will of its people. if 1 person can overrule 99 by outbidding them, what you have is not a democracy but an auction-house of politicians.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
bad
Indicators:
the title itself has a little ambiguity in the use of 'bad': does this mean that it is bad as in unappealing, unenjoyable & low quality, or bad as in negatively contributes to society... or both.
since the idea of it negatively contributing to society would be an extremely complex issue that couldn't be covered by the lengths of your post and mine combined - i'm going to assume you mean 'bad' as in unappealing/unenjoyable.
Negotiations:
edm isn't loved by everyone, so it can't be the second option. trap clearly has an audience, so the third is out as it 'working' wouldn't distinguish it from trap as your post suggests.
- it's like those amusement park rides that take you up 300 feet and then, well, drop you. the exhilaration and force of the drop is sharpened by the slow buildup.
yes, but the experience is personal and to what extent it is enjoyed subjective. some people (even though they are a visibly smaller group) really just enjoy this initial buildup.
this is not what i intended to conclude; i meant "bad" in terms of musical quality
See entire sequence
Triggers:
works
Indicators:
works in what way? appealing to you, appealing to everyone, or appealing to the audience?
Negotiations:
edm isn't loved by everyone, so it can't be the second option. trap clearly has an audience, so the third is out as it 'working' wouldn't distinguish it from trap as your post suggests.
- it's like those amusement park rides that take you up 300 feet and then, well, drop you. the exhilaration and force of the drop is sharpened by the slow buildup.
yes, but the experience is personal and to what extent it is enjoyed subjective. some people (even though they are a visibly smaller group) really just enjoy this initial buildup.
horror works in a similar fashion. the book/movie/game builds tension with atmosphere, hints at danger, etc. then when the actual scare comes, the tension is released, fulfilled. if the tension is too long without any release, or there is no tension built between releases, the particular horror effect stops working. it would be a worse effect than were it done properly. these metaphors was supposed to give a model for why trap's use of the tension-release cycle doesn't work. by this particular "doesn't work", i mean that given the model, there is an absence of "release" in trap.
trap as a genre hasn't got the conventional tension-release cycle - this is its appeal to some: the tension is retained or released slowly, leaving the listeners in a tense/strong/'pumped' state which they enjoy. for others, such as yourself, this is uncomfortable. this is where the subjective nature of art and music applies as the audience of tap music enjoys the experience while others don't and these differences are the reason for the diversity of genres.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
unfulfilled
Indicators:
what do you mean by 'unfulfilled'? do you mean that all of the tension was not properly removed?
Negotiations:
the trap fans still feel fulfilled at the end, but they achieve this by seeking a different experience from you: you expect a build and release, while they expect to retain the build beyond the peak, maybe because they enjoy the tense feeling as you enjoy the feeling of being thrilled.
our experience of tension and thrills is completely subjective in itself, so the perceived quality of different tracks in edm - which is mainly based around pursuing a certain experience that audience finds enjoyable (this extends to a large proportion of music) - would be subjective.
horror works in a similar fashion. the book/movie/game builds tension with atmosphere, hints at danger, etc. then when the actual scare comes, the tension is released, fulfilled. if the tension is too long without any release, or there is no tension built between releases, the particular horror effect stops working. it would be a worse effect than were it done properly. these metaphors was supposed to give a model for why trap's use of the tension-release cycle doesn't work. by this particular "doesn't work", i mean that given the model, there is an absence of "release" in trap.
trap as a genre hasn't got the conventional tension-release cycle - this is its appeal to some: the tension is retained or released slowly, leaving the listeners in a tense/strong/'pumped' state which they enjoy. for others, such as yourself, this is uncomfortable. this is where the subjective nature of art and music applies as the audience of tap music enjoys the experience while others don't and these differences are the reason for the diversity of genres.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
important (4)
Indicators:
the real question here is how do you define importance?
Negotiations:
i mean for certain, if i were given a choice to either alleviate someone's suffering or not, then i would choose to alleviate their suffering; however, that doesn't mean that that instance had meaning. if some time in the future, the universe is in a state where it would be exactly the same whether or not i helped the person, doesn't that mean that moment didn't matter?
[sta-cite]> however, that doesn't mean that that instance had meaning
[end-cite]what is meaning to you? why dont you feel that you have the authority to decide for yourself what does and doesnt have meaning? doesnt it seem like virtuous acts matter a lot, since we would all live lives of suffering without them?
[sta-cite]>if some time in the future, the universe is in a state where it would be exactly the same whether or not i helped the person, doesn't that mean that moment didn't matter?
[end-cite]did it make you feel good? did it make them feel good? why isnt that enough to be important?
it seems like it matters to me. i still dont really understand your definition of meaning and importance.
you are right when you say that we would all live lives of suffering without virtuous acts, and that doing good deeds does in fact make me feel good. that being said, i am still failing to understand why they matter if in the long term, the universe will be exactly the same if i didn't do the good deed. it feels to me as if i should still do the deed, but it is all a failed effort, and all for nothing.
[sta-cite]>it feels to me as if i should still do the deed, but it is all a failed effort, and all for nothing.
[end-cite]why does something have to noticeably affect the entire universe in order to be important? isnt that just an impossible standard to set?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
meaning
Indicators:
what is meaning to you?
Negotiations:
you are right when you say that we would all live lives of suffering without virtuous acts, and that doing good deeds does in fact make me feel good. that being said, i am still failing to understand why they matter if in the long term, the universe will be exactly the same if i didn't do the good deed. it feels to me as if i should still do the deed, but it is all a failed effort, and all for nothing.
[sta-cite]>it feels to me as if i should still do the deed, but it is all a failed effort, and all for nothing.
[end-cite]why does something have to noticeably affect the entire universe in order to be important? isnt that just an impossible standard to set?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
momentum based sports
Indicators:
i think you just made that up. what do you mean by this?
Negotiations:
"momentum based sports" is what i say to refer to things like rugby, american football, wrestling and stuff, where having a bit of weight behind you is necessary to do well.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
upper middle
Indicators:
depending on how you define upper middle i guess.
Negotiations:
college can cost $50000/yr now. that's probably 2/3 of the annual salary of your average upper middle class person.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
survivor (2)
survivors (3)
Indicators:
surviving something does not necessarily mean it has to result in imminent death.
Negotiations:
rape kills souls. that isn't being dramatic, that is reality for many people who've been raped. rape does not have to be compared to everything else to determine if it's "bad enough" to warrant a specific term. i survived my rape. my rapist's intention was to take my life, figuratively, possibly literally. how do i know? he said so. my rape came at a time when i was already dealing with major depression, and i very nearly took my own life after, and probably would have had it not been for someone who intervened. who are you to tell me i'm not a survivor? i sure as hell am no victim.
yeah, so i think the consensus from this thread is that "survivor" does not have as strict of a definition as i first set out, and that it can be an effective description of someone dealing with severe psychological/emotional trauma, such as a rape victim. i can see that. have a ∆
See entire sequence
Triggers:
controlling ice
control over ice
Indicators:
so we may need to revisit what you mean by control over ice and control over fire.
it seems that what you are referring to as "control over ice" is really control over water and the ability to reduce it's temperature and freeze it at will, which is much more utilitarian than just being able to move around pieces of ice (solid state water) without changing water (liquid state water).
similarly, what do you mean by fire? does this include just burning of carbon based material? or does it include nuclear fire as well, in which case any kind of nuclear fusion/fission is reasonable.
Negotiations:
fire means being able to burn or ignite the oxygen in the air or raise the temperature of a substance including yourself and freezing would be being able to lower the temperature of an object or something around you i would say imagine idk if you have watched fma or fairy tail but roy mustangs type of alchemy where he superheats the air and oxygen around him or an object and creates flames while normally this i just a poof thing the pyromancer can do this is a stream of fire the cyromancer would be like gray from fairy tail able to freeze the oxygen or substances around him and create stuff from it. and both extremes are able so you would be able to create nuclear flames while the cyromancer can reach points such as absolute zero
[sta-cite]>fire means being able to burn or ignite the oxygen in the air or raise the temperature of a substance including yourself
[end-cite]this is what i'm talking about, it depends on how you define "control of fire" vs "control of ice"
how do you define control ?
exactly my point, you're the op so you get to define it, depending on how you define it or don't, that directs the entire conversation
i just assumed everyone had the same concept if control ?_? being op has a lot of responsibilities
See entire sequence
Triggers:
controlling fire
control fire
Indicators:
so we may need to revisit what you mean by control over ice and control over fire.
it seems that what you are referring to as "control over ice" is really control over water and the ability to reduce it's temperature and freeze it at will, which is much more utilitarian than just being able to move around pieces of ice (solid state water) without changing water (liquid state water).
similarly, what do you mean by fire? does this include just burning of carbon based material? or does it include nuclear fire as well, in which case any kind of nuclear fusion/fission is reasonable.
Negotiations:
fire means being able to burn or ignite the oxygen in the air or raise the temperature of a substance including yourself and freezing would be being able to lower the temperature of an object or something around you i would say imagine idk if you have watched fma or fairy tail but roy mustangs type of alchemy where he superheats the air and oxygen around him or an object and creates flames while normally this i just a poof thing the pyromancer can do this is a stream of fire the cyromancer would be like gray from fairy tail able to freeze the oxygen or substances around him and create stuff from it. and both extremes are able so you would be able to create nuclear flames while the cyromancer can reach points such as absolute zero
[sta-cite]>fire means being able to burn or ignite the oxygen in the air or raise the temperature of a substance including yourself
[end-cite]this is what i'm talking about, it depends on how you define "control of fire" vs "control of ice"
how do you define control ?
exactly my point, you're the op so you get to define it, depending on how you define it or don't, that directs the entire conversation
i just assumed everyone had the same concept if control ?_? being op has a lot of responsibilities
See entire sequence
Triggers:
rationally
Indicators:
what do you mean by "rationally" processing information? other animals, arguably, rationally process information as well. they can reason towards end-goals related to their survival for example (limited) use of tools and techniques for catching food or pray. again, what do you mean by "rational"?
Negotiations:
other animals may exhibit some primitive form of rationality, but as far as we know only humans can engage in explicit reasoning like we see in the sciences. human beings are rational to a much greater extent than any other animal species.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
morality
Indicators:
i don't see your connection with "life" and "morality" here. unless you mean to say morality is the same as life defined objectively by biology. in which case that morality would describe the fact of life (or *merely existing*) and say nothing about good & bad, right & wrong.
Negotiations:
morality isn't the same as life, although life is the standard for morality.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
arrogance (2)
arrogant (6)
Indicators:
no.
Negotiations:
arrogance is confidence without proof.
example: you have to do project x.
if you performed x before, or you did something similar, or you have a good record of doing projects in the same general category with x, then it is confidence.
if you think you can do x, eventually, (eventually - because you have no experience) you can still be confident.
but if you think you can do x in (and do it very well in a short time) that is arrogance.
what about if "the same general category" is "doing stuff you never even heard about"? this would pretty much cancel out the definition of arrogance.
then you are good at the category "everything". and everything falls into "everything".
See entire sequence
Triggers:
arrogance (2)
arrogant (6)
Indicators:
i have fairly low confidence yet i can recognize and respect individuals such as george clooney for having high confidence, not arrogance. in fact i think the consistency with which people such as clooney are described as confident rather than arrogant demonstrates that you are wrong. if confidence and arrogance were the same attribute viewed differently by people with different levels of that attribute we would expect most people to be frequently called both confident and arrogant, and highly confident individuals like clooney would almost exclusively be called arrogant.
Negotiations:
good example. however this could just mean that there's another element that decides, which term is used.
what would happen if a random fan ran into clooney on the street and tried to talk to him and clooney would just move past him and ignore him because [insert legit reason]? isn't it likely that this fan might then be hurt enough to insist clooney is an arrogant ass? however if clooney did that to, say, brad pitt, the latter would likely not take it as harshly and change his opinion from confident to arrogant.
could the difference between arrogant and confident also include whether or not we like the person, not just whether or not they're more or less confident than ourselves?
gree with this, in fact i think this is probably one of the dominant factors in disputes over whether an action or person is confident or arrogant, however i still think confidence and arrogance refer to discrete things. for example i most people will agree that some of harry potter's actions demonstrate confidence, and some demonstrate arrogance. thus whether we view someones actions as confident or arrogant doesn't just come down to our view of that person, instead there is some difference between the actions of harry that we consider confident and the actions of harry that we consider arrogant.
hmm, actually i just named pitt because he was the first that came to mind. but considering pitt has some of the same experiences as clooney, if nothing else, he can probably empathize and understand why clooney would behave like that.
as for the fan on the street - if they are emotionally invested in their approaching clooney, they could be hurt by his ignoring them, even though it's an irrational reaction, hence feeling clooney was/is arrogant.
but yes, it is very relative and subject to many variables.
as for hp, since i read all the books and saw all the movies, do you have anything specific in mind?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
arrogance (2)
arrogant (6)
Indicators:
you've lost the distinction between objective and subjective but let me start with definitions since the words have meanings.
Negotiations:
arrogance - objectively, this is a person who offends others because they are overly confident for what they have. the arrogant person appears showy and without any foundation for their inflated self esteem. subjectively, the arrogant person is almost always trying to overcompensate for a lack of confidence, overly reliant on one or two positive traits to whitewash the inadequacies of their lives.
confidence- objectively, this is a person that instills a feeling of calm in the outside observer. outsiders see the confident person and recognize that there is a balanced individual with proper self-appraisal standing before them. subjectively, a confident person isn't trying to latch on to one or two positive traits to puff their ego - they have done a full self-assessment and undertaken to believe in themselves or their abilities relative to the challenge they face.
the distinction between the two may be indiscernible to the outside observer or it may be false bravado that is misunderstood by the subjective assessor but it is rarely, if ever, missed by both.
but whether or not they're overly confident is a subjective judgment of the observer.
from your descriptions of arrogance and confidence, i would conclude that the only difference is in how much the person lets their opinion of self show to the outside.
would you say that if the world's best [insert-profession] dismisses a random person's wrong opinion about something related to that profession, are they being a confident asshole or arrogant?
whether or not they are an asshole or not isn't really the distinguishing factor between the two in the objective view.
a confident person can still be an asshole. the arrogant person is almost always an asshole. objectively, confident people tend to inspire confidence or calm or security in others.
subjectively, the real distinction lies within. the world's best architect, if he is confident, knows his design is good and bases it on his understanding of the totality of his abilities. the world's best musician, if he is arrogant, knows his music is good and bases it on the foundation that he must over compensate for other areas where he is not satisfactory.
hmm, this is an interesting path we're taking now.
going by this, we could say that the difference lies in whether or not someone feels they must compensate for some inadequacy, correct?
but is it not possible that this architect would also come across as arrogant, e.g. when simply (legitimately) dismissing a novice architects plan as bad (without explanation for a legitimate reason - e.g. he's in a hurry - which would, however, be unknown to the novice)?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
arrogance (2)
arrogant (6)
Indicators:
i think the simplest way to describe it, is an arrogant person is only happy in being right if the other person is wrong.
Negotiations:
simply knowing the correct answer is not enough, they have to prove that you don't know it, therefore making them bigger, better, more intelligent, etc. their self worth and value is only in purposefully making you lower than them, by pointing out your flaws and their good qualities.
whereas: a confident person knows the correct answer, and that is good enough for them. there is a sense of "humbleness and modesty" that is tied in with simply being confident. after a test, they don't run over to you and ask what score you think you got just so they can say "well i think i got a 100."
so if a person has low confidence, i think a truly confident person would be sensitive to that. instead of using their low confidence to make themselves feel better, they would want to help the person and bring them up to their level of confidence, so they could share things more easily.
if you aren't an arrogant ass, there's nothing worse than rambling off your list of achievements to someone you know is doing worse than you. it just feels bad. if you are an arrogant ass, nothing feels better.
another point then, i think confident people surround themselves with other confident people to create a healthy network of support, whereas arrogant people surround themselves by insecure people in order to make themselves feel better.
hmm, i don't know, what you call arrogant i'd call simply an ass (which you did too).
what about when there's a debate about something between two people, one is right and knows he's right and won't stop pressing their point. the other (who is wrong in this case but doesn't know he's wrong) will likely perceive the first as being arrogant, even though the first is right and could simply be confident and not ready to yield for peace's sake?
well being arrogant has a negative connotation by definition, so yes, arrogant people are asses, haha.
in the case of a debate i suppose a confident person would just use research to prove their point, if they were right, and an arrogant person wouldn't. then i guess i would also tie in being ignorant with being arrogant. and if a confident person is wrong, they can accept being wrong, whereas an arrogant person would hate being wrong about the topic and then revert to personal attacks.
but there are times when even the best research doesn't convince. you can give the best research on [insert favorite falsely controversial topic like vaccinations, evolution etc.] and some people just won't listen. they will still consider you an arrogant ass who always just wants to be right, even though you're clearly wrong (in their opinion).
your "side" would call you confident. the other "side" would call you arrogant. this is why i think that both are pretty much the same and the only difference is on how you're perceived by someone else.
no, even if you're basing the perception solely on the isolated case of a debate, there's still a difference in the way an arrogant person and a confident person argue their points. again, if you're confident in your position then there would be no need to attack a person personally, bring up issues unrelated to the topic, and belittle them in order to prove your point. an arrogant person would do those things, and that's the difference between to confident people arguing their point and two arrogant people arguing their point.
if you look at evolution vs creationism debates, you will see that many people simply quoting scientific research are considered arrogant by the creationist side, even though they never use any logical fallacies, especially not ad hominems.
some people will call others arrogant simply for not changing their (correct) opinion.
some people will call others a lot of things. that doesn't mean it's true. you said that you believe that arrogance and confidence are the same thing, is that or is that not what you think? we could go back and forth about what "other" people will say or do or think forever and ever, because yes people will always think that confidence is arrogance if the "arrogant" person in question does not agree with their point, but we're trying to change your view. do you understand the difference between confidence and arrogance, or not?
i only debate what other's would say because almost all examples of an arrogant person includes a second person that decides whether or not the former is arrogant.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
arrogance (2)
arrogant (6)
Indicators:
arrogance is confidence that is misplaced or unjustified.
Negotiations:
if an amateur boxer said he could beat mike tyson, his statement would be an expression of confidence. however, it is the fact that this confidence is unjustified - because there's no way in hell this guy can actually beat mike tyson - that also makes the statement an expression of arrogance. if we reversed the roles and had mike tyson say he could beat the amateur, this would be an expression of mike tyson's confidence in his abilities, but because he has all sorts of medals and belts to support his confidence, it is not an expression of arrogance.
however, it would also be *arrogance* if mike tyson asserted that his *confidence* in his abilities -or his ability in itself- made him a superior person than the boxer, as boxing ability, success, fame, and wealth are all poor metrics to measure one's worth with.
furthermore it is *arrogant* to appear overly confident about one's abilities. if someone doesn't revise for a test because they feel confident in their intelligence and then failed it, they would have failed due to arrogance. arrogance means different things to different people, but it is essentially the antithesis of being humble. however, it is possible to be confident in one's value and abilities while still remaining humble and remembering that *you're just not that special*.
∆
[sta-cite]> if someone doesn't revise for a test because they feel confident in their intelligence and then failed it, they would have failed due to arrogance.
[end-cite]partial cmv - you convinced me that objectively speaking confidence and arrogance are not the same.
i'm still not sure that subjectively speaking (from the pov of another person) they aren't.
to take your example:
that boxer just may be the next champ and able to beat tyson, but because he's still a nobody, he would be perceived as arrogant, even though he is just being (legitimately) confident.
yeah, ultimately the differences between abstracts such as arrogance and ignorance are a lot more nuanced than the differences between concrete nouns such as a table and a chair. however, because the english language is anarchical and subjective and there are no fixed rules or supreme bodies to dictate what words mean *no words* have an absolute, objective meaning. the semantic meaning of a word is ultimately decided by the speaker, so you are just as right in your assertion that they mean the same thing as i am in mine. the greatest power language gives us is the ability to manipulate it: take "freedom", "hero" and "justice". they can have their meanings completely warped by a speaker because ultimately they have no meaning other than the meaning *we* place in them.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
peer group
Indicators:
i'm not really sure what any of this means. peer group? you can get a loan if your friends will pay it off for you? isn't that just cosigning?
Negotiations:
if you default on a loan your peer group no longer gets loans in this scenario. though there are other ways to secure debts.
ok.... if i default, none of my friends get loans either? how are you defining peer group?
the bank is presumably. also remember i was replying to this.
[sta-cite]>if you basically decree that people who buy anything on credit should get to keep it, regardless of whether they make payments, you'll be saying that nobody should lend to the poor, ever, end of story.
[end-cite]
See entire sequence
Triggers:
theories (2)
theory (2)
Indicators:
do you even know what a theory is? please, at least read up on what the scientific method is so you have an idea what you're arguing against. seriously.
Negotiations:
a purely sanctimonious comment with no value. you are making the assumption that theory is limited to scientific method when people can also debate theories on issues that are little more than conjecture such as those pertaining to something like the jfk assassination. with jfk, many people cite "scientific facts" pointing to a conspiracy even though those "facts" are actually a series of theories. the us public widely accepts the theory that there was some type of conspiracy, so do you believe the theory is no longer open to debate? where is the scientific method in this theory? do you also actually believe that everything people claim as a "scientific fact" in a debate is correct?
seeing as you didn't bother to look it up:
"a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
that's the difference between a scientific theory and a theory about jfk conspiracies.
when did i ever mention anything about scientific theory? i just explained how "theory" is not as limited as your thinking.
read the titlle. "....conflict with actual scientific fact". silly me, i thought we were on topic.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
free will
Indicators:
that is a bizarre definition of free will.
Negotiations:
i guess if you want to use that definition, then it's true that if we can't sin then we don't have free will. but realize what you're doing here.
even though it looks strange, i think that my definition is the same definition used in most christian theologies. consider the common response to the question, 'why did god create a universe that contains sin?'. the answer is generally, 'because this was necessary in order for us to have free will.' in other words, the possibility of sin is a necessary condition for the existence of free will. do you agree so far, or have i interpreted their theology wrongly?
i don't agree that you have the theology right, but i'm not going to argue it because there are so many interpretations, you can really make it whatever you want. so if you want to define free will that way, i'm fine with that.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
grow
Indicators:
i think you should define what you mean by "growing" here. do you mean a specific kind of development? if yes, in what direction?
Negotiations:
i'm mostly referring to development of intelligence and/or knowledge.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
relaxation
Indicators:
such as? isn't every form of relaxation "entertainment" by definiton?
Negotiations:
by relaxation, i mean meditating, sleeping, taking a stroll in the park, or taking a contemplative bath.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
agnosticism
Indicators:
not necessarily, or in most cases.
Negotiations:
agnosticism argues that it is not possible at a given moment in time to know absolutely, but then we don't know anything absolutely. moreover, that that's okay, we'll work with what we have.
that's kind of a flimsy sort of agnosticism. just saying "well, we're not absolutely sure" is something that i think pretty much any really honest person, religious or atheist, will admit. if that's all agnosticism means, it's a label that can be applied to pretty much anyone.
well yes, essentially, why is flimsy a bad thing? but on the question of god it can also be applied to the standards of evidence argument presented earlier. that is, there is insufficient evidence to significantly attribute "god" more reason for existence than anything else. that's why it's not insignificant to say absolute knowledge seems impossible at a given time. you can have the position while still making significant statements.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
agnosticism (2)
Indicators:
i agree and that's not what agnosticism is about.
Negotiations:
[sta-cite]>agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether or not god, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and **perhaps** unknowable.
[end-cite]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/agnosticism
agnosticism doesn't necessarily mean taking a stance that it's impossible to know stuff about god and that we will never know anything about god(s).
i guess it depends what definition you use. type "define agnostic" into google and you get
>a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of god or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in god.
if you type "define agnostic*ism*" you get the wikipedia paragraph.
merriam-webster agrees with me:
[sta-cite]>a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as god) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of god or a god
[end-cite]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
but it's really a spectrum
http://reverseenginears.com/rethink/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/agnostic+v+gnostic+v+atheist+v+theist.png
i quite agree. but quite a few religious people, myself included, already admit that the existence of god may not, to a certainty, be knowable. so a label for "we might not be able to find this one thing out" seems rather useless.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
immoral (2)
Indicators:
well, let's start here with the question of how you're defining "moral" or "immoral." you seem to be adopting a kind of "if enough people are vocally against it" standard for this first part, but is that really your system of determining was is moral?
Negotiations:
if so, how do you know the number of people who actually were okay with his actions and simply didn't say anything, and that the apparent overwhelming opposition was really just a smaller number of more outraged people?
essentially, you seem to be treating volume of the voices for the number of voices.
so let's say 51% of the world population was okay with it (a silent majority, to be a bit hackneyed), would that mean his actions were moral?
on the other side, as recently as 2013 a majority of americans opposed gay marriage, did that make gay people who did get married in that year immoral?
∆
woah. you *really* went deep there. first of all, you're right - i was making some assumptions about the definition of morality. truth is, i don't know the definition. the question "what is moral" seems close enough to the question "what is good/bad", something philosophers have been giving themselves headaches over for centuries, even millennia.
as for your definition of a moral compass, you're right again. as i have responded to comments above, my statement has simply become one about what people's morals should be and not whether the law should be involved. changing my statement to "people shouldn't act upon bad morals" or something similar would be what the dutch call "a truth as a cow" - a statement so obvious that it would be silly to defend it.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
moral compass
compass (2)
Indicators:
which is really all a moral compass represents:
Negotiations:
well, okay, but the dentist in your first example did believe he was acting morally (since otherwise he wouldn't have done it). his argument that it was legal is not an argument that he felt it immoral but did it because it was legal, but rather that it was legal and so no one else can force their morality on to him.
your argument doesn't seem to be "we shouldn't use law as a moral compass" (since the dentist probably *does* have a moral compass outside of law, but one which includes killing lions) but rather that anyone whose moral compass does not go above and beyond what the law requires is immoral purely by virtue of not being closer to your moral code.
what if my moral compass says "i got this seat first, and i don't give a damn about that old lady"? that's not using law as a moral compass, that's having a moral compass which does not require me to give up my seat and there not being a legal requirement to do so.
what behaviors do i believe i should engage in, and what behaviors should i not engage in, within the bounds of the laws which i must abide by. which means neither the moral compass of "let the old lady take my seat" nor the moral compass of "fuck her i don't want to stand" is using the law as that compass.
∆
woah. you *really* went deep there. first of all, you're right - i was making some assumptions about the definition of morality. truth is, i don't know the definition. the question "what is moral" seems close enough to the question "what is good/bad", something philosophers have been giving themselves headaches over for centuries, even millennia.
as for your definition of a moral compass, you're right again. as i have responded to comments above, my statement has simply become one about what people's morals should be and not whether the law should be involved. changing my statement to "people shouldn't act upon bad morals" or something similar would be what the dutch call "a truth as a cow" - a statement so obvious that it would be silly to defend it.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
right (2)
Indicators:
are you using "right" to mean "positive right"?
Negotiations:
it's a very problematic word, similar to "fair." i think if we define these words, we'll be very close to a conclusion.
by "right" i mean that you can do it if you want to and nobody should prevent you from doing it
with "deserve something " i mean that you have the right to take it and that although it is not necessary to be given to you, it should
i will try to explain myself better:
i understand that both concepts have no real "meaning" to an objective observant outside humanity, or to the universe itself (if that makes more sense). however, they do "exist" in the way that we as humans perceive them. morality, right or wrong, having the right to do something or deserving a reward are made up and carry no "real" meaning, sure. but within the context of the human behavior they receive the meaning that we decide to give them, and although this seems subjective to a third observant, some things are "objectively" bad for us humans, some things are "objectively" our rights and we "objectively" deserve rewards for our work. we humans have evolve to think this way since it has helped improve the society. does that make these concepts "right" or "real"? i don't think so. they seem however to be efficient and to actually help our survival.
this is the context in which i define these concepts, giving them their most common and "objectively true" for all humans definition.
i admit that i don't have a great knowledge of philosophy and i'm not sure about the validity of my ideas. i hope i have explained myself clearly enough.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
deserve
Indicators:
and could you define "deserve"?
Negotiations:
it's a very problematic word, similar to "fair." i think if we define these words, we'll be very close to a conclusion.
by "right" i mean that you can do it if you want to and nobody should prevent you from doing it
with "deserve something " i mean that you have the right to take it and that although it is not necessary to be given to you, it should
i will try to explain myself better:
i understand that both concepts have no real "meaning" to an objective observant outside humanity, or to the universe itself (if that makes more sense). however, they do "exist" in the way that we as humans perceive them. morality, right or wrong, having the right to do something or deserving a reward are made up and carry no "real" meaning, sure. but within the context of the human behavior they receive the meaning that we decide to give them, and although this seems subjective to a third observant, some things are "objectively" bad for us humans, some things are "objectively" our rights and we "objectively" deserve rewards for our work. we humans have evolve to think this way since it has helped improve the society. does that make these concepts "right" or "real"? i don't think so. they seem however to be efficient and to actually help our survival.
this is the context in which i define these concepts, giving them their most common and "objectively true" for all humans definition.
i admit that i don't have a great knowledge of philosophy and i'm not sure about the validity of my ideas. i hope i have explained myself clearly enough.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
preposterous
Indicators:
preposterous - contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous
it does not mean "crazy" or "insane".
using "big words" adds precision to language.
Negotiations:
have you never used "crazy" or "insane" to talk about something that would be considered "preposterous"?
that isn't the point.
the fact is, if i say someone said something "crazy", i don't know if he said:
* something truly insane, such as "there is a dragon in my bathroom", which is the true meaning of the word
* something preposterous, such as "we should all stop using big words", which is a colloquial meaning of the word
* something shocking, such as "i am secretly in love with x", which is another colloquial usage.
general words tend to have multiple meanings. "big words" tend to be more specific.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
basic animals (3)
basic animal
Indicators:
define basic animal.
Negotiations:
cows, pigs and dolphins are much more intelligent then a crab or herring. what about shellfish? do they feel pain?
let's say that a hamster would be a basic animal and anything above that would be more advanced cognitive function.
even still, i don't think intelligence should come into question. you wouldn't be pardoned if you killed someone with an iq of 40
what i meant by intelligence is the capacity to feel pain and emotion, intelligence probably wasn't the right word for that. a cow is mentally more devolped then a clam.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
basic animals (3)
basic animal
Indicators:
for one thing, how do you define "basic animal". is an ant a basic animal? does an ant feel pain or pleasure? i dunno.
Negotiations:
we justify eating meat by our higher intelligence. but we wouldnt want an alien species of a higher intelligence to murder us for their pleasure, that would seem terribly unethical to us.
thats the point theyre making.
for #4 for the sake of this argument, lets say that a hamster and below are basic animals. i'm not as worried about bugs as they don't subscribe to [k type reproduction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/r/k_selection_theory)
See entire sequence
Indicators:
for one thing, "alien life" is arguably even less well defined than "basic animal" from #2. are we talking about giant space worms that devour entire planets? what about crazy inter-dimensional beings that exist on such an advanced level that they don't even notice us? or are we just talking about the classic little green men, where we basically assume that they're exactly like us except they look funny and have space ships?
Negotiations:
we justify eating meat by our higher intelligence. but we wouldnt want an alien species of a higher intelligence to murder us for their pleasure, that would seem terribly unethical to us.
thats the point theyre making.
i think the shape of an alien is less important. the intelligence is far more important. if you can agree to assumption 3 based on logic, then so should an alien. if you can also agree that humans are capable of consciousness, pain, and pleasure then clearly it isn't ethical to kill humans, even from an alien's point of view
See entire sequence
Triggers:
monopolies
Indicators:
frankly, i'm not sure you have an accurate understanding of what a monopoly is;
Negotiations:
capping its profits wouldn't change anything, as profits have nothing to do with whether or not something is a monopoly.
this is to say nothing of the fact that capping profits would suppress competition, which would, in turn, lead to the *creation* of monopolies.
a cap, sir.
let's see about my understanding of monopoly:
>noun: monopoly; plural noun: monopolies; noun: monopoly
>
[sta-cite]> 1. the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
[end-cite]hmm... yup, same as when i first read it in 5th grade. good ole' education...
this is exactly the type of miscommunication i was talking about actually. i really don't understand how you make these mental leaps that turn me into a hell raiser. i somehow suspect that it is those who profit off of "said system" that do mental gymnastics to make me look like an ass, when in fact, i am sincerely trying to help and/or understand myself what would be a better tomorrow.
do you think we have no room for improvement? how about a nice cap? you'd look good in it i bet!!!
[sta-cite]> let's see about my understanding of monopoly:
[end-cite][sta-cite]> noun: monopoly; plural noun: monopolies; noun: monopoly
[end-cite][sta-cite]> the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
[end-cite][sta-cite]> hmm... yup, same as when i first read it in 5th grade. good ole' education...
[end-cite]so apparently you weren't very good with reading comprehension back then, as nothing in that definition mentions, or has anything to do with, profits.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
poisons
Indicators:
poisons like onions, alcohol, caffeine, chocolate and coffee?
Negotiations:
no, like
[sta-cite]> arsenic, hemlock, nightshade
[end-cite]
See entire sequence
Triggers:
poisons
Indicators:
and yet...people continue to eat refined sugar to the point where they get type 2 diabetes. is that not a type of poisoning?
Negotiations:
refined being the key word i guess, but in a sense yes i still think the comparison is tantamount to clutching at straws in this case.
See entire sequence
Triggers:
probability (2)
Indicators:
more examples of your misunderstanding of probability and outcome:
Negotiations:
the flipping coins example is actually isomorphic to my binary decimal experiment: let heads and tails be 0 and 1. you flip forever and you generate a string, infinitely long, of h and t. if you think that, at the end of this process, both h and t must have occurred equally as often, then you are wrong.
there are exactly as many potential outcomes (strings of h and t) as there are real numbers. one of these outcomes is all h. another outcome is all t. another outcome is perfectly alternating hththt...
and each of these is just all likely to occur as any other. so, your premise that a human randomly choosing to sin or not sin does not lead you to the conclusion that they must sin, not even mathematically.
[sta-cite]>more examples of your misunderstanding of probability and outcome: the flipping coins example is actually isomorphic to my binary decimal experiment: let heads and tails be 0 and 1. you flip forever and you generate a string, infinitely long, of h and t. if you think that, at the end of this process, both h and t must have occurred equally as often, then you are wrong.
[end-cite]it does due to the law of large numbers. [here is a pdf of the proof and further discusses the topic](http://maxim.ece.illinois.edu/teaching/fall12/handouts/lln.pdf) here is also a [video](https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probability/random-variables-topic/expected-value/v/law-of-large-numbers) on kahn academy that discusses this very example. basically if the probability of x occurring is p, then after n trials we can expect x to occur with a relative frequency of p as n goes to infinity.
>there are exactly as many potential outcomes (strings of h and t) as there are real numbers. one of these outcomes is all h. another outcome is all t. another outcome is perfectly alternating hththt...
and each of these is just all likely to occur as any other. so, your premise that a human randomly choosing to sin or not sin does not lead you to the conclusion that they must sin, not even mathematically.
the probability of any one particular outcomes goes to zero as we increase the number of trials. the probability of any *infinite* sequence hhhhh..., ttttt..., or hththt... are all zero. however the probability that we encounter any *finite* sequence approaches one. since my argument does not depend on one particular infinite sequence occurring, so i'm not sure where your objection lies.
[sta-cite]>but the premise itself is also flawed because free will is not the same as random chance: i can, by my choice and my choice alone, deliberately choose to set down the penny heads up, every. single. time.
[end-cite]this seems to be the main point of contention. i would say that if the probability of you choosing tails is zero, then you cannot choose tails, i.e. you lack free will. admittedly my argument for this is weak at this point, because to me it seem inherently true. let me take some time to think of a proof, and then i'll get back to you.
you seem to be conflating some mathematical notions. the *probability* of any particular outcome is 0, but obviously *one outcome must occur*. there is a difference, even if you choose not to recognize it, between an event with 0 probability and an event that is impossible. you are also misinterpreting probability as some absolute notion of truth. the law of large numbers does not, as you state, guarantee that every outcome with non-zero probability must occur. it simply states that the likelihood of such an event occurring tends to 1. and, like an event with 0 probability can occur, an event with 1 probability is not *factually* guaranteed to occur. it is merely immensely likely to occur. basically, you seem to think that probability makes any sort of statements about what will happen, but it doesn't. it merely makes predictions.
so that's just my explanation for the math side of things, something i am well versed in. i hate asking for trust in a debate, but you are quoting math that you don't quite understand and making interpretations about it that don't actually exist, and i don't really know what else to say other than sorry, but you are wrong about this.
as for the last bit, about free will. it seems absolutely assinine that you would describe my choice to never do something as having a 0 probability of occurring (because that's not how probability works) and then to *further* conclude that that means i have no free will is just completely ass-backwards. your model dictating that i *must* sin is devoid of free will as it dictates my actions. the righteousness that i exercised to get in to heaven will guide me to make sinless choices for the rest of eternity, because i choose to remain sinless.
you also never responded to my earlier point about sins not being possible to commit in heaven because the notions of sin itself doesn't even exist there: every action in heaven is virtuous.
[sta-cite]>yes i understand this much. i don't think it makes a difference to my argument. if you would rather i say that something has a probability of zero rather than be impossible, then that is perfectly fine with me.
[end-cite]it makes all the difference. your argument is making assertions about what *will* happen, not about what *may* happen. considering heaven is already a place of fantasy, it should not be a huge jump to imagine incredibly unlikely things happening there.
[sta-cite]>i understand this too. if you would prefer i say that the probability of an individual sinning is 100% instead of certain, that's fine by me.
[end-cite]again, your entire argument falls apart when you recognize this distinction.
[sta-cite]>sure. i'll say that with all the confidence allowed to me, that an individual will sin. it seems like you are just arguing that i'm not being rigorous with my language. that is fair, but it doesn't really address the meat of my argument.
[end-cite]the meat of your argument is that you claim to have proven mathematically that heaven is sinful. which you agree, here, now, you don't have. you have, at best, heaven is *likely* sinful. which is meaningless.
[sta-cite]>it seems like your only objection is that a probability of 1 doesn't mean absolutely certain and 0 doesn't mean impossible. i already understood this much, but didn't see the need to make the distinction. do you have any other objection besides this? i don't know everything but if you tried to explain i think i could understand.
[end-cite]if you already understood this, and chose to ignore the distinction, then you have committed an awful sin: misrepresenting statistics to sell a view.
[sta-cite]>i don't think i ever said that. i said that if there is no possibility to do x, then you can't choose to do x. i don't see how this is assinine or even that controversial.
[end-cite]correct, you didn't exactly state this. however, when i said that i would never choose to sin, you responded by saying that sin therefore had a 0% chance to happen, and thus restricted my freewill. i trust that you can see how i made this conclusion from such a response. however, it is flawed, probabilistically speaking, to look back on my choices after the fact and say that because i never sinned, sinning was impossible for me to do. sinning was possible, i chose to refrain. this is the essence of free will, and the whole point of life on earth.
[sta-cite]>alright, it is not necessary for you to sin, but the probability of you sinning approaches 1 as time goes to infinity. do prefer this version any better?
[end-cite]i do prefer this, because it is completely counter to your original claim, in which you state that every person will necessarily sin.
as for the rest, i will look through the thread for the relevant discussions.
[sta-cite]>however, it is flawed, probabilistically speaking, to look back on my choices after the fact and say that because i never sinned, sinning was impossible for me to do. sinning was possible, i chose to refrain. this is the essence of free will, and the whole point of life on earth.
[end-cite]from my perspective, i see a coin that lands heads up an infinite number of times. it would be reasonable for me to suspect that the coin is rigged to always land heads up.
[sta-cite]>i do prefer this, because it is completely counter to your original claim, in which you state that every person will necessarily sin.
[end-cite]my original claim was that every person will sin. i am willing to change that to every person will almost surely sin. how are these completely counter to each other?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
free will (2)
Indicators:
free will is not the same as random chance:
Negotiations:
i can, by my choice and my choice alone, deliberately choose to set down the penny heads up, **every. single. time.**
[sta-cite]>more examples of your misunderstanding of probability and outcome: the flipping coins example is actually isomorphic to my binary decimal experiment: let heads and tails be 0 and 1. you flip forever and you generate a string, infinitely long, of h and t. if you think that, at the end of this process, both h and t must have occurred equally as often, then you are wrong.
[end-cite]it does due to the law of large numbers. [here is a pdf of the proof and further discusses the topic](http://maxim.ece.illinois.edu/teaching/fall12/handouts/lln.pdf) here is also a [video](https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probability/random-variables-topic/expected-value/v/law-of-large-numbers) on kahn academy that discusses this very example. basically if the probability of x occurring is p, then after n trials we can expect x to occur with a relative frequency of p as n goes to infinity.
>there are exactly as many potential outcomes (strings of h and t) as there are real numbers. one of these outcomes is all h. another outcome is all t. another outcome is perfectly alternating hththt...
and each of these is just all likely to occur as any other. so, your premise that a human randomly choosing to sin or not sin does not lead you to the conclusion that they must sin, not even mathematically.
the probability of any one particular outcomes goes to zero as we increase the number of trials. the probability of any *infinite* sequence hhhhh..., ttttt..., or hththt... are all zero. however the probability that we encounter any *finite* sequence approaches one. since my argument does not depend on one particular infinite sequence occurring, so i'm not sure where your objection lies.
[sta-cite]>but the premise itself is also flawed because free will is not the same as random chance: i can, by my choice and my choice alone, deliberately choose to set down the penny heads up, every. single. time.
[end-cite]this seems to be the main point of contention. i would say that if the probability of you choosing tails is zero, then you cannot choose tails, i.e. you lack free will. admittedly my argument for this is weak at this point, because to me it seem inherently true. let me take some time to think of a proof, and then i'll get back to you.
you seem to be conflating some mathematical notions. the *probability* of any particular outcome is 0, but obviously *one outcome must occur*. there is a difference, even if you choose not to recognize it, between an event with 0 probability and an event that is impossible. you are also misinterpreting probability as some absolute notion of truth. the law of large numbers does not, as you state, guarantee that every outcome with non-zero probability must occur. it simply states that the likelihood of such an event occurring tends to 1. and, like an event with 0 probability can occur, an event with 1 probability is not *factually* guaranteed to occur. it is merely immensely likely to occur. basically, you seem to think that probability makes any sort of statements about what will happen, but it doesn't. it merely makes predictions.
so that's just my explanation for the math side of things, something i am well versed in. i hate asking for trust in a debate, but you are quoting math that you don't quite understand and making interpretations about it that don't actually exist, and i don't really know what else to say other than sorry, but you are wrong about this.
as for the last bit, about free will. it seems absolutely assinine that you would describe my choice to never do something as having a 0 probability of occurring (because that's not how probability works) and then to *further* conclude that that means i have no free will is just completely ass-backwards. your model dictating that i *must* sin is devoid of free will as it dictates my actions. the righteousness that i exercised to get in to heaven will guide me to make sinless choices for the rest of eternity, because i choose to remain sinless.
you also never responded to my earlier point about sins not being possible to commit in heaven because the notions of sin itself doesn't even exist there: every action in heaven is virtuous.
[sta-cite]>you seem to be conflating some mathematical notions. the probability of any particular outcome is 0, but obviously one outcome must occur. there is a difference, even if you choose not to recognize it, between an event with 0 probability and an event that is impossible.
[end-cite]yes i understand this much. i don't think it makes a difference to my argument. if you would rather i say that something has a probability of zero rather than be impossible, then that is perfectly fine with me.
[sta-cite]>the law of large numbers does not, as you state, guarantee that every outcome with non-zero probability must occur. it simply states that the likelihood of such an event occurring tends to 1.
[end-cite]i understand this too. if you would prefer i say that the probability of an individual sinning is 100% instead of certain, that's fine by me.
[sta-cite]>basically, you seem to think that probability makes any sort of statements about what will happen, but it doesn't. it merely makes predictions.
[end-cite]sure. i'll say that with all the confidence allowed to me, that an individual will sin. it seems like you are just arguing that i'm not being rigorous with my language. that is fair, but it doesn't really address the meat of my argument.
[sta-cite]>so that's just my explanation for the math side of things, something i am well versed in. i hate asking for trust in a debate, but you are quoting math that you don't quite understand and making interpretations about it that don't actually exist, and i don't really know what else to say other than sorry, but you are wrong about this.
[end-cite]it seems like your only objection is that a probability of 1 doesn't mean absolutely certain and 0 doesn't mean impossible. i already understood this much, but didn't see the need to make the distinction. do you have any other objection besides this? i don't know everything but if you tried to explain i think i could understand.
[sta-cite]>as for the last bit, about free will. it seems absolutely assinine that you would describe my choice to never do something as having a 0 probability of occurring (because that's not how probability works)
[end-cite]i don't think i ever said that. i said that if there is no possibility to do x, then you can't choose to do x. i don't see how this is assinine or even that controversial.
[sta-cite]>and then to further conclude that that means i have no free will is just completely ass-backwards. your model dictating that i must sin is devoid of free will as it dictates my actions.
[end-cite]alright, it is not necessary for you to sin, but the probability of you sinning approaches 1 as time goes to infinity. do prefer this version any better?
[sta-cite]>the righteousness that i exercised to get in to heaven will guide me to make sinless choices for the rest of eternity, because i choose to remain sinless.
[end-cite]so another poster here changed my view about this slightly. to avoid starting a duplicate conversation, would you mind just joining our conversation instead of starting a new one here? i gave him a delta so it should be easy enough to find. if you aren't satisfied with what was already posted, i'll be more than happy to start a new conversation with you.
[sta-cite]>yes i understand this much. i don't think it makes a difference to my argument. if you would rather i say that something has a probability of zero rather than be impossible, then that is perfectly fine with me.
[end-cite]it makes all the difference. your argument is making assertions about what *will* happen, not about what *may* happen. considering heaven is already a place of fantasy, it should not be a huge jump to imagine incredibly unlikely things happening there.
[sta-cite]>i understand this too. if you would prefer i say that the probability of an individual sinning is 100% instead of certain, that's fine by me.
[end-cite]again, your entire argument falls apart when you recognize this distinction.
[sta-cite]>sure. i'll say that with all the confidence allowed to me, that an individual will sin. it seems like you are just arguing that i'm not being rigorous with my language. that is fair, but it doesn't really address the meat of my argument.
[end-cite]the meat of your argument is that you claim to have proven mathematically that heaven is sinful. which you agree, here, now, you don't have. you have, at best, heaven is *likely* sinful. which is meaningless.
[sta-cite]>it seems like your only objection is that a probability of 1 doesn't mean absolutely certain and 0 doesn't mean impossible. i already understood this much, but didn't see the need to make the distinction. do you have any other objection besides this? i don't know everything but if you tried to explain i think i could understand.
[end-cite]if you already understood this, and chose to ignore the distinction, then you have committed an awful sin: misrepresenting statistics to sell a view.
[sta-cite]>i don't think i ever said that. i said that if there is no possibility to do x, then you can't choose to do x. i don't see how this is assinine or even that controversial.
[end-cite]correct, you didn't exactly state this. however, when i said that i would never choose to sin, you responded by saying that sin therefore had a 0% chance to happen, and thus restricted my freewill. i trust that you can see how i made this conclusion from such a response. however, it is flawed, probabilistically speaking, to look back on my choices after the fact and say that because i never sinned, sinning was impossible for me to do. sinning was possible, i chose to refrain. this is the essence of free will, and the whole point of life on earth.
[sta-cite]>alright, it is not necessary for you to sin, but the probability of you sinning approaches 1 as time goes to infinity. do prefer this version any better?
[end-cite]i do prefer this, because it is completely counter to your original claim, in which you state that every person will necessarily sin.
as for the rest, i will look through the thread for the relevant discussions.
[sta-cite]>however, it is flawed, probabilistically speaking, to look back on my choices after the fact and say that because i never sinned, sinning was impossible for me to do. sinning was possible, i chose to refrain. this is the essence of free will, and the whole point of life on earth.
[end-cite]from my perspective, i see a coin that lands heads up an infinite number of times. it would be reasonable for me to suspect that the coin is rigged to always land heads up.
[sta-cite]>i do prefer this, because it is completely counter to your original claim, in which you state that every person will necessarily sin.
[end-cite]my original claim was that every person will sin. i am willing to change that to every person will almost surely sin. how are these completely counter to each other?
See entire sequence
Triggers:
radical
Indicators:
who decides what is radical and what isn't?
Negotiations:
to a five-year-old, han solo returning to save luke skywalker could be radical. plot, itself, relies on changes and unexpected occurances to drive it forward. all movies with a conventional plot work this way. you have a problem with especially radical twists, but all plots have twists to some degree. you are only noting radical twists for their trivilaity and failing to recognize more subtle twists and turns becausw they work well.
my point is that twists are necessary. you are not realizing that a radical twist like at the end of the usual suspects isn't the only kind of twist. most movies have twists like that to a lesser degree. plot depends on changes like that.
i think this is a definition issue, with you using a different one than me. and you are right that 'radical' is not an absolute term.
for me radical means also very significant, that the sole twist impacts the whole narrative, before and after the twist. the usual suspects, signs, memento etcetera.
any change in the plot wouldn't really fit into that definition.
that is a certain kind of twist. what i am saying is, since all plot requires changes and developments, unexpected turns and revalations, how do you evaluate what makes something radical or not? the usual suspects does somethint not unlike star wars - it ends with a character revealing something about himself at a crucial moment (that han is capable of caring about more than money) and something unexpected happening. if it works in one movie, why not another? what does it matter *how* unexpected it is?
you are talking about character development, unexpected or not. this is not what i consider a plot twist, since it is more specific to a character.
i didn't question 'how' unexpected it is. i agree with you that there is a sliding scale, just like the notion if somebody is tall or not. movie critque is not an exact science.
for a look at how i see a plot twist, see [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/plot_twist) or [tvtropes](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/main/plottwist).
See entire sequence