Apoc-C : I salute you!!!

[DeletedUser]

Assasin, I don't think you have been forgiven yet

 

[DeletedUser67005]

D:

The pain of being ignored is too much...

 

[DeletedUser]

To Peter: We are arguing the age old axiom, because in your statement you specifically state that the age old axiom is not true when you state "the opposite of love is not hate" you are refuting what is self evident (Although, let's face it, it's not actually an axiom because it is indeed a fact) No matter how much arguing you do, you can't escape the given definition of the two words in question, love and hate. They are opposites no matter how much philosophizing you do.

You make philosophy sound like a bad thing, for crying out. Perhaps you should take a step towards trying to understand what the meaning is.
If you'd like to argue the point further - go track down Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner. He is the author:

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
- Elie Wiesel

http://www.thepowerofforgiveness.com/about/peopleinthefilm/wiesel.html
Or is this too deep for you?

This next example may be difficult for you, but when you go out to a bar or club or other establishment in order to attract someone, they start out indifferent to you. The people you will be approaching do not care about you, they do not know about you. Yet you still stand a decent chance of convincing them that they should want to know more about you and should no longer be indifferent toward you. However assuming the same situation you were to encounter someone you hated at the bar, you would have literally 0 chance of convincing them to do anything nice toward your being. This probably still isn't sinking in, but oh well.

For starters, Dr. Einstein, I have clearly stated that I understand your argument. You keep presenting these little examples in order to prove you're right (and to defend your paramour's position). The point of Elie Wiesel's statement is more expansive than your narrow example. Perhaps you should devote some time to actually thinking about his prose, rather than attacking the messenger.

Is hate the opposite emotion of love? Of course. But indifference is not the midpoint between the two, as it is an absence of all emotion.
Your silly barroom example is not accurate, either. Why? Because the girl you want to impress might not be attracted to you, but that doesn't mean she'd not "care" about you if you got your ass kicked. In general, humans are not generally indifferent to other people. There is some basic level of caring that exists.

I apologize for offering deeper thoughts than my breakfast menu.
I'll try to keep it more banal.
(Oops! Was that word too "smarty"???)

 

[DeletedUser]

You make philosophy sound like a bad thing, for crying out. Perhaps you should take a step towards trying to understand what the meaning is.
If you'd like to argue the point further - go track down Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner. He is the author:

The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference.
The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference.
The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference.
And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference.
- Elie Wiesel

http://www.thepowerofforgiveness.com/about/peopleinthefilm/wiesel.html
Or is this too deep for you?


For starters, Dr. Einstein, I have clearly stated that I understand your argument. You keep presenting these little examples in order to prove you're right (and to defend your paramour's position). The point of Elie Wiesel's statement is more expansive than your narrow example. Perhaps you should devote some time to actually thinking about his prose, rather than attacking the messenger.

Is hate the opposite emotion of love? Of course. But indifference is not the midpoint between the two, as it is an absence of all emotion.
Your silly barroom example is not accurate, either. Why? Because the girl you want to impress might not be attracted to you, but that doesn't mean she'd not "care" about you if you got your ass kicked. In general, humans are not generally indifferent to other people. There is some basic level of caring that exists.

I apologize for offering deeper thoughts than my breakfast menu.
I'll try to keep it more banal.
(Oops! Was that word too "smarty"???)

You see, I argue the position because you and others specifically state that hate is NOT the opposite of love.
That was your exact wording. Yours was not "Indifference is opposite to Love" which would have brooked no argument, but in fact your statement was "Hate is not the opposite of love" intentionally contrary.

Honestly, I hate to break it to you and Elie Wiesel, but his ideas are clearly distorted by his experiences. I don't think he is even capable of looking at these things with a clear vision. I mean let's get real here
"the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference" lol? This is possibly the dumbest statement of them all.
All of which are pretty stupid. I know this may be hard for you to imagine, but books are written to make money, writing contrary outlandish ideas is one tactic to do this. This of course does not make the ideas insightful, useful, or otherwise actually worth considering.

You continually belittle me for "not being able to think deeply" about these things, but it seems to me, you are incapable of thinking for yourself on these things and just go with whatever idea seems popular amongst the contrary dreamer crowd.

Me disagreeing with the ideas you and these idols of yours present has nothing to do with deep thought. The ideas presented simply are not logical.

"Your silly barroom example is not accurate, either. Why? Because the girl you want to impress might not be attracted to you, but that doesn't mean she'd not "care" about you if you got your ass kicked. In general, humans are not generally indifferent to other people. There is some basic level of caring that exists."

This is not true at all. The girl is indifferent to you, because she does not know you, or even know you exist. If you got your ass kicked in the bar before even speaking to her, she most likely wouldn't spare you more than a few looks (out of curiosity) and then spend the rest of the night conversing with her friends about the exciting happenings. Most people are largely indifferent to the people they don't know. It's the reason you don't go balling your eyes out every time someone dies in the news or there is a natural disaster that kills thousands. Did you shed a tear when Haiti was demolished? I didn't, because I didn't know any of those people, I didn't care about any of those people. However at the same time, I didn't hate any of those people. Had I hated them, I may have celebrated their plight. Being that I am indifferent to them, and couldn't care less what happens to them I could still probably be swayed moderately easily to care about them. Whereas if I hated them, there would be no chance.

 

[DeletedUser53573]

I actually met Elie Wiesel & got him to sign his book for me

So, clearly, I am the expert on whatever you are debating.

 

[DeletedUser]

You see, I argue the position because you and others specifically state that hate is NOT the opposite of love.
That was your exact wording. Yours was not "Indifference is opposite to Love" which would have brooked no argument, but in fact your statement was "Hate is not the opposite of love" intentionally contrary.

Holy shit, dude.
Bella's inanity is rubbing off on you. Or maybe I just never fully appreciated your inability to probe past the obvious.
Are you telling me that you don't see the point of Wiesel's comment? Seriously? LOL! I don't think this is even worth pursuing.
But being the masochist I apparently am...

Honestly, I hate to break it to you and Elie Wiesel, but his ideas are clearly distorted by his experiences. I don't think he is even capable of looking at these things with a clear vision.

Thank you, Captain Obvious! Nobody would ever suspect that a man is made by his experiences. Indeed, I should not be considering anything YOU write, because you're just telling me crap that's based on your own life experiences.
By your rationale, only people with no experiences in life are legitimate sources of philosophical introspection and literary creation? Do you even consider what you're saying before you say it?

I mean let's get real here
"the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference" lol? This is possibly the dumbest statement of them all.
All of which are pretty stupid.

This made me laugh out loud again! Hahahaha!
Do you only see the word "life" as meaning "alive"? Wiesel's point is LIFE. The act of truly LIVING, dude. Jumping out of airplanes... falling in love... getting in a fight... running with the bulls... THAT sort of "LIVE".
I really pity a person unable to see the beauty in poetry and philosophy.

I know this may be hard for you to imagine, but books are written to make money, writing contrary outlandish ideas is one tactic to do this. This of course does not make the ideas insightful, useful, or otherwise actually worth considering.

Irrelevant.
And no it's not "hard for [me] to imagine." I deal with it every day. So, please don't pretend to tell me what you "know" about me. Ok? Ok.

You continually belittle me for "not being able to think deeply" about these things, but it seems to me, you are incapable of thinking for yourself on these things and just go with whatever idea seems popular amongst the contrary dreamer crowd.

Me disagreeing with the ideas you and these idols of yours present has nothing to do with deep thought. The ideas presented simply are not logical.

LOL! Wow. You really don't know me at all. You are also a really bad judge of people if you think this actually describes me.
The funniest part of your comment? I don't even like Elie Wiesel... and yet you call him an idol of mine. Classic.

This is not true at all. The girl is indifferent to you, because she does not know you, or even know you exist. If you got your ass kicked in the bar before even speaking to her, she most likely wouldn't spare you more than a few looks (out of curiosity) and then spend the rest of the night conversing with her friends about the exciting happenings. Most people are largely indifferent to the people they don't know. It's the reason you don't go balling your eyes out every time someone dies in the news or there is a natural disaster that kills thousands. Did you shed a tear when Haiti was demolished? I didn't, because I didn't know any of those people, I didn't care about any of those people. However at the same time, I didn't hate any of those people. Had I hated them, I may have celebrated their plight. Being that I am indifferent to them, and couldn't care less what happens to them I could still probably be swayed moderately easily to care about them. Whereas if I hated them, there would be no chance.

Out of all of this garbage, I can only ask... if you, in fact, "didn't care about any of those people" ... well you are sad, miserable person. Sorry. To not have feelings for your fellow man's suffering is unfathomable to me, and indicates you might have some "missing" part in your brain.
I think it's called sociopathy.

 

[DeletedUser53573]

Thank you, Captain Obvious! Nobody would ever suspect that a man is made by his experiences. Indeed, I should not be considering anything YOU write, because you're just telling me crap that's based on your own life experiences.
By your rationale, only people with no experiences in life are legitimate sources of philosophical introspection and literary creation? Do you even consider what you're saying before you say it?

Not quite what he was saying at all. I believe he was pointing out how the extremes of his particular experiences affect him differently than the 'typical Joe'.

This made me laugh out loud again! Hahahaha!
Do you only see the word "life" as meaning "alive"? Wiesel's point is LIFE. The act of truly LIVING, dude. Jumping out of airplanes... falling in love... getting in a fight... running with the bulls... THAT sort of "LIVE".
I really pity a person unable to see the beauty in poetry and philosophy.

Thats pretty objective, isn't it?
Furthermore, I could claim that I pity a person unable to see the beauty in arguing and trolling tribalwars forums. What makes one better than the other? Public opinion?

Out of all of this garbage, I can only ask... if you, in fact, "didn't care about any of those people" ... well you are sad, miserable person. Sorry. To not have feelings for your fellow man's suffering is unfathomable to me, and indicates you might have some "missing" part in your brain.
I think it's called sociopathy.

Again, that was not what he was saying. You're taking things out of context (or too literal? idk im tired). Did you shed tears for 9/11? the many hurricanes that hit the gulf? The earthquakes? I didn't. However, I did shed tears when my parents divorced. When my sister went to college. When my dog died. But I don't think you shed tears for those either? Afterall, it was a fellow man's suffering.

I suggest you take your own advice:

please don't pretend to tell me what you "know" about me. Ok? Ok.

and apply it.

 

[DeletedUser]

Did you shed tears for 9/11? the many hurricanes that hit the gulf? The earthquakes? I didn't. However, I did shed tears when my parents divorced. When my sister went to college. When my dog died. But I don't think you shed tears for those either? Afterall, it was a fellow man's suffering.

I think I am actually dumber for having read that, SN.

I will only say this: Yes, I did shed tears for the 9/11 victims. And I am not indifferent to the suffering of my fellow man. If you think being so makes you a better person, you have a lot more to learn about humanity.

 

[DeletedUser53573]

Where did I state I am a better person for having not crying over 9/11?

Theres a difference between showing grief and crying.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think I am actually dumber for having read that, SN.

I will only say this: Yes, I did shed tears for the 9/11 victims. And I am not indifferent to the suffering of my fellow man. If you think being so makes you a better person, you have a lot more to learn about humanity.

The emotional trauma suffered over the loss of a close loved one is enough to crush the soul of any person. If you were to feel this emotion or even a sliver of this emotion at every human death, you would almost certainly be institutionally insane. A level of Indifference is an emotional necessity for survival.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you, Captain Obvious! Nobody would ever suspect that a man is made by his experiences. Indeed, I should not be considering anything YOU write, because you're just telling me crap that's based on your own life experiences.
By your rationale, only people with no experiences in life are legitimate sources of philosophical introspection and literary creation? Do you even consider what you're saying before you say it?

It was you that presented his previous experience as a credential for the validity of his writing. You were specifically mentioning his holocaust survival as an advantageous experience when shedding light on the topic at hand, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. Suddenly it shocks you that I should bring his experience into question when regarding the topic? Of course experience shapes a person, it is exactly this reason why his experience is brought into question, the experiences of a person specifically shapes their ability to give sound judgement on any given topic. Would you prefer a doctor for medical advice or a high school drop out with no experience in the medical field whatsoever?

As to whether I am right or wrong in regard to his experience vs the topic at hand, isn't really the subject. However, you belittle me for even calling his experience into question, which seems odd to me, especially considering that it was you who brought his experience up in the first place. To simplify the exact example at hand so that you may see it from a different perspective than your own.

assume the same medical example above.
You state "oh yea, my brother is a shamanistic healer, and he says that to heal migraine headaches use such and such a treatment"
I state "Frankly I think your brother being a shamanistic healer makes him even less reliable at giving good medical advice than your average googling Joe."
Then you attack me for calling his experience into question.

It is you that have presented your brothers experiences as a credential for the information provided.
I am a skeptic of his "shamanistic abilities" in this case, just as I am a skeptic as to the holocaust experiences giving Elie Wiesel a beneficial insight into the topic of love vs hate.
It is you that presented his holocaust experiences as an advantage on the subject, making him an authoritative figure on the subject. I never once said that he was incapable of making an opinion on the matter, only that his experience may in fact be detrimental to his opinion on this particular subject. Certainly on another subject his experience would be a strength and add weight to his opinion.

LOL! Wow. You really don't know me at all. You are also a really bad judge of people if you think this actually describes me.
The funniest part of your comment? I don't even like Elie Wiesel... and yet you call him an idol of mine. Classic.

Of course i don't know you, just as you don't know me. I comment on how you present yourself on this forum, not as you actually are. Perhaps how you believe you present yourself is in fact not how you present yourself.

For one who regularly decries others for using fallacious arguments, you seem to rest heavily upon an ad hominem crutch.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, its fine. I like double posts.

 

[DeletedUser53573]

The emotional trauma suffered over the loss of a close loved one is enough to crush the soul of any person. If you were to feel this emotion or even a sliver of this emotion at every human death, you would almost certainly be institutionally insane. A level of Indifference is an emotional necessity for survival.

thats what i meant

 

[DeletedUser]

thats what i meant

We all understood what you meant.. well, except for Peter :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

thats what i meant

You're response was good and easily refuted all of Peter's arguments. He usually does his "wow, I'm dumber for having read that" response when you have defeated his arguments and he has nothing good to say.

 

[DeletedUser]

Where did I state I am a better person for having not crying over 9/11?

Theres a difference between showing grief and crying.

And there is a difference between "showing grief" and being indifferent. You conflated the two.

 

[DeletedUser]

The emotional trauma suffered over the loss of a close loved one is enough to crush the soul of any person. If you were to feel this emotion or even a sliver of this emotion at every human death, you would almost certainly be institutionally insane. A level of Indifference is an emotional necessity for survival.

Oh my. LOL!

You are getting into silly territory, dude. A "sliver of this emotion" ??? What the heck is that?
A "level of indifference" ???
Such nebulous standards of emotion. So... what's the opposite of a "sliver?" LOL

 

[DeletedUser]

It was you that presented his previous experience as a credential for the validity of his writing. You were specifically mentioning his holocaust survival as an advantageous experience when shedding light on the topic at hand, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.

Actually, this is a lie. I gave you the quote. I identified who said it. I identified that person with the 2 main things that people would know about him. Nobel Prize winner and Holocaust survivor. It was YOU who attached meaning to these things... not me. Please stop lying. It's rather unbecoming for a person we all respected.

Suddenly it shocks you that I should bring his experience into question when regarding the topic? Of course experience shapes a person, it is exactly this reason why his experience is brought into question, the experiences of a person specifically shapes their ability to give sound judgement on any given topic. Would you prefer a doctor for medical advice or a high school drop out with no experience in the medical field whatsoever?

Shocks me? LOL! Another lie. You're becoming delusional.

As to whether I am right or wrong in regard to his experience vs the topic at hand, isn't really the subject. However, you belittle me for even calling his experience into question, which seems odd to me, especially considering that it was you who brought his experience up in the first place. To simplify the exact example at hand so that you may see it from a different perspective than your own.

The trifecta! Lie #3. I didn't offer his experience as something relevant. It would be like quoting Daniel R. Crissinger . Some people might not know who that is.
So, instead of just using the man's name, I might include -- Former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. Does this mean I'm using his experience to justify his comments? No. It means I am identifying him.
When it comes to philosophy and poetry, the ID of a person is far less relevant than .. oh... I don't know ... what the words convey.
Quit trying to change the subject.

assume the same medical example above.
You state "oh yea, my brother is a shamanistic healer, and he says that to heal migraine headaches use such and such a treatment"
I state "Frankly I think your brother being a shamanistic healer makes him even less reliable at giving good medical advice than your average googling Joe."
Then you attack me for calling his experience into question.

This example might be relevant or analogous in some parallel universe. But not here. Again (for the THIRD time)... YOU raised the experience issue. Not me. And now you're scurrying around for rhetorical escape hatches.

It is you that have presented your brothers experiences as a credential for the information provided.
I am a skeptic of his "shamanistic abilities" in this case, just as I am a skeptic as to the holocaust experiences giving Elie Wiesel a beneficial insight into the topic of love vs hate.
It is you that presented his holocaust experiences as an advantage on the subject, making him an authoritative figure on the subject. I never once said that he was incapable of making an opinion on the matter, only that his experience may in fact be detrimental to his opinion on this particular subject. Certainly on another subject his experience would be a strength and add weight to his opinion.

Since you are so hellbent on trying to debate Wiesel's experience vis a vis his thoughts on love and hate...
Tell me.. oh wise sage ... why do you think being a holocaust survivor would be DETRIMENTAL to his opinions on hate? How above love? Please cite some specific writings or quotes to substantiate your bullshit.
Thank you.

Of course i don't know you, just as you don't know me. I comment on how you present yourself on this forum, not as you actually are. Perhaps how you believe you present yourself is in fact not how you present yourself.

For one who regularly decries others for using fallacious arguments, you seem to rest heavily upon an ad hominem crutch.

Hardly. My use of ad hominem is employed against those who prove unable to communicate in any other manner. After 2 years of receiving the attacks, I've decided to respond in kind. Sorry if you're now caught in the crosshairs... but you don't have to write to me. Indeed, it is always you who first engages me. Not the other way around.

 

[DeletedUser]

Doesn't anyone else see the irony in Zurtle's criticism of others' use ad hominem? I just remembered why I ignore him!

 

[DeletedUser]

Hahaha, looks like I really got under your skin this time. An insult in almost every sentence.