Ever wonder why the US calls it soccer?

Politics are indeed a tender subject in any given situation. However, it was nicely segued into by the preceding posts. But, given anything Xyle is bound to say after any one moment of lucidity, oops.

 

It is interesting to note how ego-centric the human mind really is in that it fails to consider the full position of the individuals that one argues with (and we all have done this).
Case in point, I have been deemed crazy and crazy people's logic and reason can always be called into question by the sheer fact that they bear this label, even if their logic and reason are flawless. But more to the point, I have embraced this label with this persona when I could just as easily start a new persona. ...Why should this be so? Because the limitations that "being crazy" places on me are precisely the limitations that I wish to communicate from.
I don't wish to argue for anything; however, even the sanest individual will still consider the arguments of the crazy person when they argue against a thing. This is because of the nature of emotional arguments: While it is easy to believe that another human doesn't thinks the same as we do, we still believe that every other human is capable of feeling the same emotions that we do and only those that feel nothing are the exception. Because of this the emotions of the crazy person are NOT called into question (only the emotions of the cold-hearted) because a crazy person tends to be crazy simply because they have merely lost some form of control over their emotions (i.e. they let emotions rule reason). Therefore, emotional arguments may be given more consideration and not less when spoken by Crazy, or at the very least, they are not given less consideration.

Now what was it that I was arguing against? The position that slavery is evil. Why was I arguing against it? Am I a slaver that wishes to have my trade made acceptable? Hardly. The only known slavers in modern society are stealers of women (and men) and I spoke against those. So what possibly could be my motivation to speak on behalf of a dead institution that no longer exists? What is my emotional motivativation for doing so?

:-?
Lucidity - "the ability to see things clearly; rationality; sanity"

I am either missing your point or you used the wrong word. Why should temporary sanity on my part be considered a source of conflict?

Why should you expect flak? The last time a third party candiate won a presidential election, Abraham Lincoln became president and the Whig Party was replaced by the Republican Party. As for socialism, political terms are worse than meaningless in the US because those from whom we would learn their meanings (politicans) speak without using any form meaning whatsoever.

 

You don't know the "proper" definition of crazy. Being crazy essentially means psychosis, psychopathy, or both. Crazy is when there's no logical thought-pattern when actions given are considered by a rational mind, and this is not necessarily driven by emotional overload. In the case of psychopathy, a psychopath feels no true emotions, but may be completely crazy;
Self driven, only acting to pursue one's goals, sometimes to great harm of others around them. A fictional example would be The Joker. A real (but toned down) example would be a person getting married to someone rich and old simply because of the money, and who is willing to alienate that person from every member of their family so they're the sole heir to the fortune, while convincing that rich person that they're the only one who really cares. On top of that, they shouldn't actually care that they're hurting anyone, and would only care about how much the money will benefit them. The rationality (to them) is that they're better than those they manipulate or hurt, and therefore, those people aren't people at all. If a psychopath does something to end up in jail (like killing a stripper), they cannot be rehabilitated because they will never learn the women they kill are people and must be treated as such (They're just strippers, so what?). They're incapable of caring that those strippers might've been good people, that maybe what they did was wrong. There's actually a difference in neurology from a psychopath and a sane person, and MRI's show the parts of the brain thought to be responsible for empathy are not as well formed in psychopaths as they are in normal people. However, I am not suggesting there are no "harmless" psychopaths.

As for a person with psychosis, they have a physically normal brain, but abnormal chemical activity occurring within it. You know how during a dream things may happen that have no basis in reality, but make perfect sense while you're in the moment? This is what happens for a psychotic whenever they're in an episode, and the reason they're psychotic is because the logical part of the brain ceases functioning as though those people were dreaming...but while completely conscious. This can have very detrimental effects, some of which I have personally experienced and previously described on this forum.

A psychopathic psychotic is on an entirely different planet. I can't begin to describe their thought processes, and I'm not sure anyone could give a reasonable explanation.

As for the lucidity, you're capable of saying things that do make logical sense. Then, you tie up the entire post with something that makes no sense. It essentially emasculates any point you made, if a point could be considered having a gender. For example, the post of yours I numbered.
You make two completely valid points that any one person could maintain; that you may never truly understand politics, and that emotions are easier for you to understand than language.

Then, you said that you didn't understand what deception was in your words, which would mean you used no deception while choosing them.

This is not a point, this is a lack of understanding of your own words, and there's no reason for it.
I mean, there are situations in which this is somewhat relevant, like a double-entendre that you didn't pick up on until you read the same words in a new context;
I lost my balls, but I still have my bat. OMG by saying that, I could've implied I had gotten elective castration, but what I actually meant is my baseballs are gone. Ha, could still mean the same thing.
However, you're talking about a literal deception you hadn't even intended somehow being present in words you chose yourself.

You said you couldn't explain what you meant by the words you used, because you weren't sure what could be hidden within them. Despite that, you said you knew that the words only meant what you wanted them to when you put your sentence together.

Right there ^^. Those two things cancel each other out. If you don't know what your sentence means, you can't claim it meant what you wanted it to.

That's a ridiculously roundabout way of saying you attempt not to deceive people when speaking, and the sheer ludicrousness of that particular statement negates all sense you had made previously.
For example;

I don't believe I know everything about art, but I can say rather honestly that I understand how to shape soapstone more easily than I know how to sculpt something else.

That means I don't understand how people sculpt other things, which means I can't really say I know how to sculpt; I only know that what I produce from soapstone is a sculpture.

It's one of those cases where the filler is just that bad. The key difference between what I just said and what you said is I was actively trying to make less sense. However, language is infinitely more broad a subject than sculpture (in that a word meaning face can be spelled and pronounced countless ways, but everyone who's seen a face can recognize one), and politics create government funding for art. In both of our cases, only the first sentence was necessary, though I find I understand what I said in addition much more easily than what you said in addition. That could either be because I used a much more limited scope, or our difference in experience makes what either one of us said make more personal sense.

 

No doubt. But then, does my use conform to the common distortion?

Quite informative, but what if you are as logical asleep as when awake and therefore as logical awake as when asleep? And what is on the other extreme than psychopath, i.e. one who feels too much?

If I am nuts, I can't have nuts? (jk)

-----------------

There is more than one form of deception. For example: Deliberate vs Incidential. An honest person does not deliberately try to deceive, but if he assumes that a person knows a thing that the person does not know, he may very well deceive via the omission, hence incidential deception. Furthermore, a "truth" that is in fact a generalization, such as Newton's Law of Gravity, becomes deception under the conditions where it no longer holds true. Therefore, while I may mean what I say, I may not fully understand the logical extreme to which others will take them to. (Reference Event: wayne's logic binge) Therefore, I don't know how my words will deceive others.

But that was my point ... I lacked a rational understanding of my words. They "felt" right, but I used no logic to find them. It was purely inspired... (or inspired bullshit).

If you are using logic and reason... I wasn't.

Logic and reason allows you to be "buddies" with language, but I desire a more intimate relationship with words. I want the words I use to be my best friend (or closer) so that they come from the same place that art comes from. When art comes forth from the soul, the artist doesn't always know it rationally, but the artist still knows that it is expressing that which lies within. You could say that my problem was that I knew the soul of the words, but did not know their face.

Such is the nature of art and poetry: Seemingly senseless.

Who says that language is supposed to make sense? Part of what poetry teaches is that the rational mind is oftentimes deaf to the words of the heart.

Oh, wait, you were deceived by the fact that I sometimes makes sense so that you expect all of my words to be prose and never poetry? Therein is the deception of those words. Emotion & Art and not Logic & Reason were their parents.

 

People who've become "temporarily insane" due to an emotional overload (which I'll call a trigger {one of oh, so many}) have an underlying mental condition that weakens their mental defenses. This is not permanent, though it may last long term. Popular examples would be pleas of temporary insanity while in court in defense of a violent crime. Realistically, everyone has a breaking point where they're no longer thinking rationally and act without premeditation or logic. While it's a real thing, it's pretty shaky, because as a species, humans will pride themselves on being above their baser instincts (while watching porn and eating an entire pizza).
Willingly mixing two forms of communication together within the same language (and indeed the same post) without telling anyone about it is certainly a deliberate form of deception, especially when there's no perceivable difference in cadence or inflection to imply artistic license, i.e. on a forum where you're having a conversation. On top of that, it's pretty silly to say something that makes sense and then follow up with something that doesn't and say it's poetry simply because no one gets it.
So, you do deceive people at will, but don't consider it deliberate deception because you're mixing prose and poetry, the (hopefully) logical and the artistic. I put "hopefully" in parentheses because prose is casual speech; hopefully it makes sense to people reading or listening to it. It was not a pot-shot.
When people clearly can't tell the difference between your prose and poetry, do you think perhaps you're not good at delineating between those two things yourself? Or do you think it's their fault for not understanding you?
Artistic language is subjective, but you're stretching your own definitions of deliberate and incidental to cover your own ass. You might mean only what you say, but considering I'm literally autistic, and no one else "gets it" anyway when you slip into poetic verse (considering there's no reason for any of us to spontaneously think, "Huh, this doesn't make much sense literally, it must be a poem."), you might benefit from actually saying which part of your statement isn't to be taken as a literal sentence when posting. You know, if you're aware of which part that happens to be before someone posts on how crazy what you said sounds.

 

Hyper-empathy. It sounds like a cool kind of super power, but being too sensitive to other people's feelings means that social situations can be quite exhausting. Also, unscrupulous people can take advantage of you by playing the pity card, even when you're fully aware that it's what they're doing.

Being a psychopath is better - at least they get to have fun.

That's the same argument people use to defend the Bible:

"God created the heaven and earth" - literal fact
"The moon is a light source" - that's just poetry

I've never seen anyone apply the same principle to their own writing though. "I'll just say something that sounds nice. If it turns out to be right, then that's what I intended. If it turns out to be nonsensical then I must have been writing poetry."

The one thing I can say in Xyle's favour is - at least he admits that all he is doing is throwing bullshit at a wall and seeing what sticks. Everyone else who I've ever seen doing that pretended that they had some kind of rational structure behind it all.

 

Didn't know there was a word for it. Kinda fits me...but it doesn't make me go crazy. Just easier to get me to budge with crocodile tears.

There's a super-hero who can induce emotions and various psychological states in other people, and at one time he used that power to rape somebody (which would call into question his status as a "hero"). He's called Starfox. He also stood toe to toe with the Hulk, saying his power could calm him down;
He thought if the Hulk is fueled by rage, then instilling a sense of euphoria in him would make him turn into Bruce Banner...because everyone knows that if a big green guy's power is limitless strength, you want him to have an orgasm while he's facing you. Nonetheless, before the euphoria hit, the Hulk punched Starfox through a wall. Starfox does not have enhanced strength or durability on the list of his powers, so he may as well have been a relatively fit guy getting hit by a freight train.

 

We're supposed to think before we act? ... I do get your point, but I hope that you will get mine.


Now let's consider the nature of that response. By asking it, I am being an ass. Then by admitting I get your point, I am withdrawing the "stink" -- that foul impression that "being an ass" leaves on people's emotional response to what they read with indication that you make sense inspite of the fact that my question suggests otherwise. (...And my actual conclusion escapes me just now...)

Actually the poetry was the part that made sense to you. The part that you deemed superflous was a poor attempt of expressing my understanding of what I wrote: My logical "rational" part attempting to express its displeasure with my artistic part.

I have been often told to my face that I think too much. This is probably because I tend to over-explain. And I over-explain because the instant that I access the part of my brain that handles language ... well, it feels like I lose my ability to feel... I over-think?

--------
Excuse me while I use this post as a sounding board for an introspection analysis:

Why does the phrase over-think has a different impact on my understanding that thinking too much? I over-think instead of responding naturally. ...When I respond "without thinking" in a natural manner, I don't have this problem... Thinking too much implies work, when I am "over-thinking" I don't feel like I am working at thought, it feels as my mind is spinning its wheels and not making the progress so I don't feel as I thinking "too much", but the phrase "over-thinking" doesn't make this implication so I can accept it.

Note: ... indicates parallel thought.

End Introspection.
--------

My primary communication problems (on this forum at any rate) is that I over-think and occassionally play the smart ass. While mixing this two unnatural states with my natural state of being insightful and considerate. So basically I am not being myself by role playing at being as much as ass as everyone else on this forum. I cannot play the complete ass, as that would mean not offering my insights. But I can corrupt my insights so that they seem silly and senseless and therefore be an ass by diminishing the value of "my pearls" that I know better than to cast before those who will "turn again and rend" me. (see Matthew 7:6 for definitions of concepts in quotes)

 

Technically. There is something called muscle memory that allows people to do things without actually thinking about them, but it's instilled through repetition and otherwise in-depth training. In cases like these, thinking about a proper course of action would actually slow the person down. Think of a decent hand-to-hand martial artist disarming and disabling an attacker in an act of defense. They follow the logical course of action leading to that attacker being neutralized. However, they do this without actually thinking, because part of their training imprints a sequence of disabling moves (or just one, depending on the art) sparked by instinct and also according to the given situation. Though, they may think just enough to decide whether or not they must kill their attacker to survive.
A person should not necessarily be ruled by thought, but hopefully their instincts and emotions don't alternatively rule their lives to the point where a toddler is crying loudly and annoyingly while the mother visibly does nothing to stop it (appears apathetic), and instead of thinking that it might be better to move away or try to ignore it, instinct and anger tell you to either;
Yell at the mother
Slap the mother and tell her to quiet her child
Kill the child
Depending on the person, at least one of those actions is instinctual, and I listed them in ascending order corresponding to most severe consequences.
Now, it might actually be part of the parenting style; perhaps she's ignoring her kid so the kid learns he/she can't just throw a tantrum and expect to get her/his way. Certain situations call for thought, while others call for instinct.
The thing about a certain instinct, Fight or Flight, is you've essentially got a 50/50 depending on physical ability, both of you and what caused the reaction. Against a hungry grizzly (as in, you're camping in the wilderness at night and a bear tears open your tent because it found no food outside; you've now become food), your best bet is actually to fight it, though you might die. If you run, you'll just tire yourself out until the bear catches you, which leads to a struggle, and you're most likely going to die. Bears are quite physically imposing, though they're smart enough to know if you do can do enough damage, you're not worth the risk, and you might make foraging/hunting more difficult.
Certainly you've heard of the mother who allegedly lifted a car off of her son and saved his life? This is a case where no drawn out thinking was done; she saw her son working on a vehicle from underneath and the support gave way, trapping him and probably leading to death, given enough time. She simply had a surge of adrenaline at seeing this happen, and despite her small frame she was able to lift the car just enough to save her son. She broke many bones due to the stress her muscles exerted, but her son was safe. If she thought about it before doing it, she may have "realized" through knowledge of her physical capabilities that there was no way to lift that car on her own, and her son may have been crushed to death.
For some people, the end result of acting upon instinct is property damage, personal injury, and possibly jail time if someone gets in the way.
I'm one of those people (though it's very rare). I literally black out when I'm angry enough, and when I regain my senses, normally something is broken and I'll end up with a brand new scar. One of them is from punching through the wall of my shower-the result of ruminating negative thoughts. At one point I was "gone" for about a week.
Thankfully I've not injured anyone, regardless of how "justifiable" it might be to break a man who said he'd rape my mother. He wasn't actually going to do it, but he wanted me to hurt him enough to cause the force I'd use to be called "excessive." I know this because he knew how strong I was while conscious of myself-he saw me lift a fully loaded trailer with riding mowers and everything onto a truck hitch before we started on our grass route.
I can successfully stop myself if I'm thinking about consequences, and not hurting other people is a high priority. However, the fact that this is known to happen weighs heavily on me, and as it scared both myself and other people, I must nearly always think before I act and consider the worst possible result of my actions. If you're a person to lose control, what you can physically do to someone while in a normal state is approximately one fifth of your muscle power when compared to what's possible when driven by instinct. If you can hit with a force of 300 pounds per square inch, it could go up to 1500, which is enough force to shatter any bones in the human body-including yours, upon impact.

 

Your cognitive problems are commonplace, Xyle.

I speculate that information technology replacing the classics in school has led to a general decline in the literacy and language skills of your generation. But you're adapting to the modern world, such as it is, so maybe it's only retarded from a certain point of view.

As to your biggest problem on this forum, it's hubris. You are simply not that clever, original or interesting.

 

Riiiight. Which is why this;

Was said in response to this;

Which is a flustered summary of this;

I got the entire thing, but the first part made sense immediately, as it was obvious. When I commented on your circuitous method of saying "I don't intend to deceive," you said, "Oh, it's poetry." Seriously, reread what you said on the previous page and tell me where I misinterpreted you, unless you were commenting on something of mine you didn't quote, right under something else of mine you did.
You're attempting to rewrite your verbal history by amending it in a completely separate future comment. This is a forum, not a chat room. When the window closes, the words stay up.

Paranoid contingency plan.
I'll give you some credit, you did say you didn't use logic to find the initial words you used, however, it was the most logical thing you said in that post. Your exposition of the lack of deception you intended was more poetic and flowery than what you're calling poetry on this page, despite being what you call logic. I don't believe you know the difference. Interestingly enough, when you try to be logical, according to this page, it ends up sounding like poetry. When you're writing poetry, it comes out as logical prose.

 

I was thinking more of the line of fools and idiots. I assume that you have heard the sayings "Fools rush in" and "Look before you leap."

I remember when my mother had her youngest, a half-brother of mine, and she let him cry. (And he wasn't a new-born either, but I can't remember how old... maybe a year). I don't quite remember her logic, but my current understanding that is at least based in part on her logic is 1) a mother knows what the baby needs based on the type of cry (at least an experienced or an "in-tune" mother does). 2) The mother should not feel that every cry should demand immediate attention as this will spoil the baby... And a spoiled baby grows up to be a spoiled child. 3) It's good exercise for the baby's lungs, amongst other benefits, if the mother waits a short while before tending to the baby. 4) Mothers should never ignore cries of desperation, nor allow the baby's cries to approach that level of need via this raising method.

But for all, the mother that does not immediately respond to the baby, isn't ignoring the crying either. To ignore something pretty much requires putting it out of your mind (or at least trying to). However, an outside observer may not be able to tell the difference, so I wouldn't actually question your use of the word ignore.

But then... For all I know, my mother just wanted to finish what she was working on and knew that it wouldn't hurt the baby if the baby waited for a bit.

The bear that tries to eat me will be in for quite a surprise... even if I have become old and weak. I have learned how to use the "voice of authority" that animals respond to.

A berserker! -- I had an event that was almost a black-out berserker event, except because I am also a mystic (of sorts) I was able to also maintain awareness and allowed God (according to my beliefs & understanding) to "talk" me down by reminding me of specific things. Boy, were my opponents scared and the only thing that I did was not fall down when punched in the side of my head and then faced my opponent... while blinded by pain and emotion.

I had a co-worker who was a true beserker, and in the military to boot. I would look him in direct in the eyes, knowing that he wouldn't hurt me because I posed no physical threat. Hopefully, his subconscious learned something from that.

But here's my advice for you as you pointed out how this is scary: Make all of your decisions now, by thinking them in your heart. Under what conditions do you believe that you have right to defend yourself or another with lethal force? Under what conditions do you have the right to cause bodily harm to another? ... Etc. down to the littlest thing that will settle you off. By knowing your will by making the decisions ahead of time, your body will be limited to operating within the bounds of your known will. Especially if you are feeling strong emotions when you make the decisions. -- I recommend watching a emotionally stirring combat movie to stir your emotions into a harmless sense of combat if you don't know of another way.

You may want to make decisions that extend past "rights" into "privelege", but I don't recommend it. In fact, you may want to choose to be a pacifist in order to fully limit your body as test to see if your body will obey your will. I had choosen to be a pacifist about a year before my almost blackout, and that may be the only reason that it was an "almost" blackout (if you discredit my mystic claim).

 

Gosh! Wow, what a guy!

 

My generation? That's rich! :lol: I am older than most people here. I didn't learn computers until High School and I didn't go online until college. In fact, I learned QWBASIC and DOS on a 386 computer the summer between Jr High & High School, after the 486's came out. And if you don't know what 486 is, the original Pentium was a 586.

If you were truly smart, my handle would tell what Generation I am. In fact, via that it could tell you the year I was born.


I also read at least a dozen books a years, and reading ability has little to do with writing ability.

-----------------------

But I don't intend to deceive... when all is said and done (jk).

However, that doesn't mean that I don't make mistakes, or reply in convulted manner. (not jk)

Really? Damn. (jk)

The part that I didn't think about and didn't make full sense to me, was the part that made the most sense. However, the part that I thought about and seemed to make sense to me, was the part that made the least sense? You know, I can't tell that's a joke or not -- the joke must be on me.

How about when I think that I am being an ass? Such as questions like "How about when I think that I am being an ass?" Do you read them as me being an ass or not an ass?

 

You didn't learn classical greek at school though, didya?

But you can still read almost a book a month? Gosh!

And yes, btw, you still seem like an ass.

 

Ah. Well, I believe the major difference between those types of people is a fool is about to do something stupid, and an idiot has already done it. I try to say that without really insulting either person's relative intelligence, and rather their judgement. Yes, I'm familiar with both phrases. I have acted out both; the former while younger, the latter more recently.

Well, you may not need the "voice of authority," even while an old man. If you're able to make enough loud noises, like banging pots and pans together or yelling at the bear, you could possibly scare it off. However, bears that arrive at campsites during the night are almost always looking for food, or are simply young bears who are curious. In both cases, the bear will be walking, and you won't know it's aggressive until it actually tries to attack you. More experienced bears abuse their status as apex predators to coerce food from people. They're not above eating people if they can't find your food or you won't give them any (though this almost never happens), and they might even seem playful-until they realize this won't be an easy meal. If you're in a pretty big group, though (maybe 5 or 6), the bear will concede defeat before making a move and just wander away. But, despite what I already said, grizzly attacks are pretty rare, even at night. Now, be honest; say a couple cubs pop up out of nowhere. Are you confident your voice of authority can overwhelm the maternal instinct? Female bears are known to cause the highest amount of fatal attacks. Also...how many potentially aggressive grizzlies have you actually stopped?

Ah...I recall when I did actually hurt someone. I was five, and a group of third graders were trying to mess with me. There were just three of them, but they started out pretty nice. They asked if I wanted to be in their club, and I said yes. This is where it gets kinda iffy;
They told me I had to fight one of them and beat them to get in. The biggest kid (who had a Jew-fro) grabs me, and what I definitely know happened is I ended up punching his diaphragm as hard as I could. Then it gets kinda fuzzy, but I remembered myself as I was holding the back of his head and about to raise my knee into it. I had already bloodied his nose at this point, so I must've done the knee thing already. I stopped and ended up walking away.
It wasn't at this point I realized I might be dangerous, because I still got my ass kicked quite a bit while I knew what was going on, normally with two other kids holding me down and a third hammering my stomach. Granted, I wasn't ever really hurt by these other kids, but it's humiliating to be held down and beaten by a group of anyone.
But, I'm a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to violence. As Ben Franklin said, "Your right to punch another man in the face ends at the tip of his nose." Might be paraphrasing that.
Only in self defense, or in the protection of others. I only know what I can do to objects at this stage of my physical development, so I'm not sure how to limit what I'd do to a person, or even what affect seeing me fly into a rage would have on the person I want to protect. I'm certain it would only be detrimental. How can you convince a person you won't harm them after such a display of violence? While the capability to do something doesn't directly imply abject probability, I don't want people I care for to fear me.
As for the mystic thing; trained martial artists are capable of similar feats, and you may have tapped into that potential under your own discovery. You may recognize that voice of reason as something above, but there's something known as the "super ego" as defined by Freud that essentially takes the role of a person's conscience. Whatever you believe, you're exerting some form of control over a very volatile state, from what you say. That, under its own merit, is respectable.

 

Mariah Carey's music videos are getting really weird these days.

 

Too much text! and Fraser looks funny as a ginger.

 

I don't live in bear country -- actually that's no longer not true, black bears are making a comeback to the area, but I haven't encountered any and I doubt that I will any time soon. However, I did rebuke a dog once with voice alone: it turned tail and ran away with tail between its legs. It had charged me with apparent intent-to-bite when I was off its property (I was on the road). That dog had definitely needed a lesson in boundries.

What was most interesting about that event was that what felt like an angel "stayed my hand" (or rather my voice) until the appropriate moment so that the dog's sense of territory wouldn't be diminished to less than its actual territory: My decision was abrubtly "paused" and in the instant of that pause I was informed that the pause was still in accordance with my Will, then at the proper moment, my Will was released and carried out. This created a sense of disconnect between Willing and Doing that is not a common experience.

People fear what they don't know. If they know you and know that you can control yourself, they are less likely to fear. But then, at times it feels like people don't ever really get to know anybody, including themselves... so I don't really know.

Scripture says that "Perfect love casts out fear." But if the person in question chooses fear over love, there may be nothing that we can do.