OK, ZPG: Let's get a room. I'm paying.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@madsircool

ZPGZ trolling is brilliant and entertaining from a Marquis de Sade perspective. Your trolling is boring and tedious.

Might help if you tried to understand it first.

Though on second thought, it probably wouldn’t.

@Spice_Weasel

FTR, there’s good evidence to support the theory that all ethical positions are emotionally driven, not rationally driven, and I find that evidence compelling enough to believe. So I actually believe, based on the evidence, that is impossible to be purely rational, unless your brain is dysfunctional. It’s like free will, this grand illusion of rationality, so I take anyone claiming to be purely rational with a huge grain of salt… including myself.

OK, but if you buy that, then it’s impossible to dismiss any position as being impossible to be rational. Once all rationality is an illusion, then you can’t draw a clear line between positions that can’t possibly be “anywhere in the realm of rational” and other positions.

@BigT

Spice Weasel may not see how to defend your allegations, but I can.

What a clever little boy you are.

Guess what? RATIONALIZATIONS ARE NOT RATIONAL. A rationalizations is an after-the-fact use of pseudorational statements to justify an opinion someone did not come into rationally. You can rationalize anything, but it doesn’t make it rational.

This is a valid distinction, if someone happens to have referred to those two separate things. However, my assessment of what SW wrote in her initial post was that she was not doing that. You can certainly read that into her second sentence, but not the rest of that paragraph. And her subsequent posts on the subject also do not support your interpretation. SW has already said that she misstated in a different manner, but if she wants to say she was imprecise in this manner I can buy that. But it’s not your prerogative to reinterpret other people’s words.

But you are a clever little boy. Also a White Knight, if that’s not a contradiction. Pick your choice.

[BigT]

@Spice_Weasel

I like talking to Fotheringay-Phipps. He makes me examine my own assumptions.

The only problem is my dialog style can be really disconcerting to hyper-rational people because I can’t separate emotion and reason in my worldview much less from the way I argue. They’re used to seeing a purely emotional argument, and dismissing it, or seeing a purely rational argument, and taking it seriously, but they don’t really know how to interpret an emotional argument backed up by evidence or reason.

And I am not even claiming I’m always right or reasonable. The one thing I know for certain is that I know nothing for certain. But damn, we have to draw lines somewhere. I feel like infanticide is setting the bar pretty low.

You really are a fucking saint, aren’t you. The guy goes after you like that, and you still like talking to him. Even if he is pretentious as fuck and goading you.

Bittersweet for me, though. Your complaint about me would be nothing from anyone else. But when you can defend assholes like this, I have to notice.

And since I didn’t want to raise that Pit thread, I’ll say it here. I am genuinely sorry for hurting you, and I honestly cannot imagine I would ever intend to do so. You’re not perfect, but there’s a whole lot to you that I aspire to.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@BigT

You really are a fucking saint, aren’t you. The guy goes after you like that, and you still like talking to him. Even if he is pretentious as fuck and goading you.

Do you really live in a world where telling someone that they are contradicting themselves amounts to “go[ing] after” them, and “goading” them?

Or are you just an even bigger White Knight than I thought? Maybe you should get yourself a horse.

[madsircool]

@Spice_Weasel

I like talking to Fotheringay-Phipps. He makes me examine my own assumptions.

The only problem is my dialog style can be really disconcerting to hyper-rational people because I can’t separate emotion and reason in my worldview much less from the way I argue. They’re used to seeing a purely emotional argument, and dismissing it, or seeing a purely rational argument, and taking it seriously, but they don’t really know how to interpret an emotional argument backed up by evidence or reason.

And I am not even claiming I’m always right or reasonable. The one thing I know for certain is that I know nothing for certain. But damn, we have to draw lines somewhere. I feel like infanticide is setting the bar pretty low.

Thank you for fighting my ignorance.

[Sunny_Daze]

FP - You were being an ass. If you and Spice Weasel were enjoying the conversation, fine. From outside of it, yes, it looked like you were being an antagonistic prick for no particular reason.

[Spice_Weasel]

Oh, yeah, that’s the other thing. I hate pedantry. I have no patience for it. This is also a contributing factor in my responses. I will never, ever have a brain like FP, but I’ve gotta learn to communicate better with people that do.

Fotheringay-Phipps you could also be a little more fair by acknowledging I pointed out that there were rational contradictions in ZPG’s positions earlier in this thread. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seemed to me your argument was that ZPG’s beliefs were an example of how reason could lead one to reach bizarre conclusions.
My first statement was a response to that assertion. I don’t see how there’s any possible way reason could lead one to those conclusions because I view them as logically contradictory.

Singer is a different thing. So if I had really thought it through before I responded, I think it would be to make a distinction between how Singer arrived at his ethical conclusions compared to how ZPG did. That is, I don’t think your point about Singer is wrong, per se, but it’s not applicable to ZPG.

[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
OK, but if you buy that, then it’s impossible to dismiss any position as being impossible to be rational. Once all rationality is an illusion, then you can’t draw a clear line between positions that can’t possibly be “anywhere in the realm of rational” and other positions.
[/QUOTE]

I see that as similar to the argument that if you don’t believe in free will you can’t be held accountable for anything you do. Whether pure rationality is illusory or not, the belief that we have it appears to serve some evolutionary function. I’m perfectly fine working within a rational framework, too. It’s a great tool, I just recognize it has limits.

If, for some reason, your rational framework leads to you the conclusion ‘‘kill babies,’’ then perhaps you have reached those limits.

[QUOTE=BigT]
Bittersweet for me, though. Your complaint about me would be nothing from anyone else. But when you can defend assholes like this, I have to notice.

And since I didn’t want to raise that Pit thread, I’ll say it here. I am genuinely sorry for hurting you, and I honestly cannot imagine I would ever intend to do so. You’re not perfect, but there’s a whole lot to you that I aspire to.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry. This place can make me callous sometimes and I was probably having a shit day. Thank you for the kind words.

[octopus]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

IMO these accusations of trolling are misplaced. And this gets to the point I was making earlier in citing Peter Singer, although I was not as explicit about it as I might have been.

Basically, many people have a whole lot more confidence than they should in that things which they believe in strongly are completely compelling, such that no rational person could possibly believe otherwise. (And they dismiss radically different beliefs in other eras as being primitive believes that have been refuted and which can longer come back now that we’ve progressed past that point.) But I don’t think that’s warranted. Especially on matters of ethics and morality, there is enormous capacity for great variation in belief system.

So no matter how wacky someone’s belief system seems to you, that in and of itself is not a reason to assume they’re faking it. They might just have a radically different belief system than yours.

Exactly. Different sets of axioms logically followed will result in different rational viewpoints. It’s one reason why different religions have to ignore certain precepts to get along.

[octopus]

@Spice_Weasel

A troll doesn’t have to be faking it to be a troll. By the board’s definition, it’s sufficient to be deliberately pissing people off.

If you are seriously suggesting that murdering a pregnant woman to prevent her from giving birth is anywhere in the realm of rational, I really don’t know what to tell you.

Stuff like Singer is one of the reasons I dropped philosophy as a major. People will ‘‘rationalize’’ themselves to completely inhumane conclusions. Rationality is not the end-all and be-all of being human. In fact given the whole of evolution, its a relatively recent part of human development, and I’m willing to bet it’s the more primitive parts of us that lead to any ethical conclusions at all. Rationality is just a tool we use in an attempt to make our world more ordered and predictable. You can build a rational framework for just about any terrible position.

See if you can follow my logic:

1. Condoning murder as an acceptable alternative to adoption is sociopathic.
2. If ZPG is sincere in her beliefs, she is sociopathic.
3. If ZPG is not sincere in her beliefs, she is sociopathic.

Deliberately pissing people off is the point of pitting people. :smack:

[Don_t_Panic]

@octopus

Deliberately pissing people off is the point of pitting people. :smack:

This isn’t about pitting people. This is about using a Pit thread to try figuring out just WTF is going on with ZPG’s posting habits in general.

[octopus]

@Martian Bigfoot

This isn’t about pitting people. This is about using a Pit thread to try figuring out just WTF is going on with ZPG’s posting habits in general.

She’s either consistently playing a role or she’s following what she considers axiomatic to her logical conclusions. You aren’t going to understand her because your fundamental assumptions that govern your view on the world are significantly different than hers.

I think she takes personal sovereignty a bit far and the 4th trimester abortion is a bit harsh and in my mind a more primitive view that may have had a place in ancient or extraordinarily poor societies but is out of place in a modern, rich nation.

I like reading stuff that takes a different point of view than my own so that’s why I engage. If I want to read stuff that agrees with me I can write that out myself.

[kambuckta]

ZPG, does your husband know that you post on this messageboard?

[Don_t_Panic]

@octopus

[…] she’s following what she considers axiomatic to her logical conclusions.

Dude, were you even paying attention up there? I asked her to follow something that she claimed to consider axiomatic to a logical conclusion, and she swerved off the road like a loser in a game of chicken.

(Actually, that was kind of fun to do. Let’s see if I can do it again, with some other kooky thing she has said.)

[Don_t_Panic]

@octopus

I like reading stuff that takes a different point of view than my own so that’s why I engage. If I want to read stuff that agrees with me I can write that out myself.

That’s fine. Me, too. BTW, did you read this thread?

Wait, is this a joke? I can’t even tell at this point.

[Don_t_Panic]

Fuck. Whoosh. Stop messing with my head, would you? What did I ever do to you?

I should probably get out of here now.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Sunny_Daze

FP - You were being an ass. If you and Spice Weasel were enjoying the conversation, fine. From outside of it, yes, it looked like you were being an antagonistic prick for no particular reason.

I think you may need a safe space.

Fortunately there are other forums on this MB, with all sorts of exciting threads on things like your favorite actor/singer/television show/food, and what’s about that strange itch you’ve been dealing with. Check them out!

@Spice_Weasel

Oh, yeah, that’s the other thing. I hate pedantry. I have no patience for it. This is also a contributing factor in my responses. I will never, ever have a brain like FP, but I’ve gotta learn to communicate better with people that do.

FTR, the difference between “X cannot possibly be rational” and “there’s no point in discussing rationality because anything can be thought to be rational” is not pedantry.

I appreciate that you’re a popular poster on this board, and it can be tempting to ride that wave. But it’s a bad habit to get into, IMO. You might one day find yourself in a different dynamic where that won’t suffice.

Fotheringay-Phipps you could also be a little more fair by acknowledging I pointed out that there were rational contradictions in ZPG’s positions earlier in this thread.

Sorry it’s a long thread and I don’t recall all your posts, even assuming I’ve read them all to begin with.

My initial posts on this theme were not directed to you specifically. If you feel you’ve said something earlier in this thread that has a bearing on the current discussion, by all means feel free to point this out. But I am not going to reread all your posts to a lengthy thread on the off chance that you’ve said something relevant several pages ago.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seemed to me your argument was that ZPG’s beliefs were an example of how reason could lead one to reach bizarre conclusions.

I couldn’t say for sure in the specific case of ZPGZ. What I’m saying is that reason could lead one to beliefs that many consider shocking, e.g. infanticide. I cited Peter Singer for this purpose. So you can’t conclude that ZPGZ must be trolling or mentally unhinged merely by observing that she professes these shocking beliefs, as many here seemed to be doing.

Singer is a different thing. So if I had really thought it through before I responded, I think it would be to make a distinction between how Singer arrived at his ethical conclusions compared to how ZPG did. That is, I don’t think your point about Singer is wrong, per se, but it’s not applicable to ZPG.

That’s possible. You need to get into the details for that.

I’m perfectly fine working within a rational framework, too. It’s a great tool, I just recognize it has limits.

If, for some reason, your rational framework leads to you the conclusion ‘‘kill babies,’’ then perhaps you have reached those limits.

I agree. That’s a big part of my initial post on this subject. That the distinction between someone who reaches shocking conclusions and someone who does not is not as great as many people assume, as they both may be using similar thought processes.

But worth noting that emotional arguments can also lead to conclusions like “kill babies”. So downgrading reason doesn’t get you anywhere in that regard.

[QuickSilver]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

IMO these accusations of trolling are misplaced. And this gets to the point I was making earlier in citing Peter Singer, although I was not as explicit about it as I might have been.

Basically, many people have a whole lot more confidence than they should in that things which they believe in strongly are completely compelling, such that no rational person could possibly believe otherwise. (And they dismiss radically different beliefs in other eras as being primitive believes that have been refuted and which can longer come back now that we’ve progressed past that point.) But I don’t think that’s warranted. Especially on matters of ethics and morality, there is enormous capacity for great variation in belief system.

So no matter how wacky someone’s belief system seems to you, that in and of itself is not a reason to assume they’re faking it. They might just have a radically different belief system than yours.

I agree with** F-P **on this one.

I’m not prepared to dismiss ZPG as simply taking a controversial position on a subject most societies find immoral (at a minimum), simply because she’s bored.

It’s entirely possible she truly believes what she advocates. I’d like to believe that she lacks the courage of her convictions to actually conduct herself in the manner which she promotes. In other words, I believe ZPG is too much of a coward in real life to actually kill infants. If I’m right, at worse, ZPG is a delusional & unhinged troll. If, however, I’m wrong, and she does/has practice(d) what she advocates, then she’s a sociopath and we’re all getting a view of a fundamentally broken individual.

Were I betting man, my money would be on ZPG being a liar & coward with delusional idealization of whatever demons haunt her unhinged mind.

[MrDibble]

It’s stuff White people like. Now sadly inactive.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Guinastasia

You do realize that “What White People Like” is intended as satire, right?

One thing you don’t seem to understand is that one major part of the pro-choice movement is that a woman should have control of her own body. It’s not just about whether or not you want to be a parent. To a person who is truely pro-CHOICE, forcing an abortion on someone is just as abhorent as denying them that option, because it denies them the control of their body. (Forget arguing whether it’s a life or not: if an adult could somehow manage shrink themself and crawl up inside my body, I think I should have the right to expel said person, even if it would cause their death)

And that’s why most pro-choicers who are so disgusted with the idea of infanticide. I support abortion rights whole-heartedly. But once that kid is out of your body, it’s a separate person. It may not have the same, fully developed mind of an adult, but it’s still a separate person now. You’re no longer an “incubator”, as you put it.

And if you don’t get it, then you’re a fucking psychopath. I don’t give a shit WHERE you come from, or what circumstances you’ve been in.

Of course, I realize it’s satire, but satire is sometimes an amazingly brilliant way to communicate (think Swift’s Modest Proposal). I am pro-choice because I believe women should have control over their bodies however we as a society have always recognized the freedom to operate your body as you see fit ends when it compromises someone right to operate theirs. You may swing your fist however you like, but society has a right to make it illegal for you to hit someone else’s nose or their property. As I have said repeatedly before. In an ideal world forcing abortions or murdering pregnant women shouldn’t be an issue because it would be possible for a man in an unwanted pregnancy to free himself from any legal obligation to an unwanted child (just as a woman can free herself from the legal obligation by having a safe abortion). But we don’t have that now and many people (often the same people that would think forcing a woman to continue incubating a fetus against her will which is surprising) seem vehemently opposed to the idea; therefore, the available solutions to the problem of unwanted pregnancy get much nastier. I personally do not want a world where the solution to an unwanted pregnancy is killing the mother, but I am willing to acknowledge that in some cases it may well be the most just option.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@kambuckta

ZPG, does your husband know that you post on this messageboard?

Oh yeah, he reads it all the time. I keep telling him he needs to join, so he and Bricker can argue the finer points of law. He says he doesn’t care to debate people all the time. Outside of work he doesn’t care to socialize with non-Roma culture that much. He finds it too much of a hassle. Whatever, I like learning about how other people think even if I disagree with them.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@Martian Bigfoot

Dude, were you even paying attention up there? I asked her to follow something that she claimed to consider axiomatic to a logical conclusion, and she swerved off the road like a loser in a game of chicken.

(Actually, that was kind of fun to do. Let’s see if I can do it again, with some other kooky thing she has said.)

Oh please the logical conclusion was right in your face, your poor reading comprehension skills not withstanding, the entire time. And I tried to be polite (which I now realize was my mistake in the Pit) about making it, so as not to trigger all the hysterics that occur with some other Dopers when the subject becomes dead babies.