Imagine a paradise where no one is ever laughing honestly, then imagine a hell where everyone is always laughing honestly.
Does it matter which has been described as paradise or hell?
or rephrased:which one is really paradise, and which one is really hell, according to your judgement?
or rephrased:which one do you prefer?
and after you made your choice the question for debate is, is your choice different than the world you live in and why, according to your judgement again (please be limited in the size of your responses)?
I’m trying to understand what you mean. Is this a supernatural setting, and in hell, 24/7 people are eternally guffawing, with no break, because everything is hilarious? And in the other setting, things are gong on, but laughter just isn’t one of them?
Or are you saying that in the hell setting, there’s no social laughter, and people are straight-faced unless something tickles their fancy, whereas in the other setting, there’s no laughter at funny things, only social laughter?
1)imagine a Paradise , any way you want to but, where no one is ever laughing honestly.
2)imagine a Hell, any way you want to but, where everyone is always laughing honestly.
I need you boys and girls to use your imagination, I can’t be telling you how to imagine, this is up to you.
3)After you imagine, where you do think you live in and why?
4)Because for me, paradise is where everyone is always laughing honestly (unless some of you can imagine something else), and then we can discuss the various problems about the world you live in, in the order of importance of your choice.
5)So any of you who really want to debate, I’m listening.
“it is not fun to have to read one person’s opinion, which is that only one way of thinking about a subject is correct, when everyone knows humans are variable.”
Start from:
Everyone knows humans are variable.
Because of this, on a subject, many ways of thinking about it are correct.
If all ways of thinking about a subject were correct, there would be no reason to think about a subject.
So some ways are correct, some are not, and people will have to judge.
How do humans, judge? In the end in a fun way, because if in the end it isn’t fun, why are they spending all this time and effort judging?
?
I see that you’ve followed previous moderator instructions and are attempting to post narrower topics of discussion, but I’m not sure how much traction you’re going to get with this one. Can you try framing the topic of your debate in a single, concise sentence? For example:
“Resolved: laughter is the best medicine.”
This is not going to work here. You have to put in the work to frame the debate in **a meaningful and approachable way **before you expect people to engage with you. The fact that posters are taking time to ask you for clarification is a good sign - it means that you’re being given an opportunity to refine your thought process. Condescending to us isn’t going to get you anywhere, though.
The problem is not a lack of imagination among your actual and potential respondents, it’s your inexact or undefined terms and lack of explication, AlexPontik.
LHoD shows the language problem with the phrase “laughing honestly”. I think you mean "a [ heaven or hell ] where, when persons laugh they are laughing [ genuinely or for effect without feeling actual amusement ]. But you posed the question, you should explain what you mean by honest laughter. He also highlights the language problem with the phrase “always laughing”. You might mean "when people laugh it is always [ “honestly” or “dishonestly” ] (however you’re defining honest/dishonest in this context). LHoD wonders if you mean “laughing continuously without pause”.
If you want folks to entertain your query, it’s quite helpful to avoid equivocal language in how you pose it.
For myself, I’d say any reality that excludes the middle we all actually live in -which includes honest amusement, wry appreciation, mordant consideration, formulaic social niceties, dad jokes and all the variously earnest, disingenuous and vaguely conscious forms of human interaction- sounds pretty hellish to me.
Imagine, if you will, a hell with all the classic bells and whistles: fire, ice, torture, pain, horrors that defy imagination, for eternity. Now imagine laughter amidst. Do you feel better or worse about the situation you find yourself in?
I mean nothing more and nothing less, than the words I wrote down.
What this means to you, it is up to you.
The question is as exact, as it should be, and no more and no less.
What you think and write back is up to you
(also please try to understand, I am not trying to offend you in any way, if this is simply a bad discussion, just ignore it, in the end, nothing comes out from a bad discussion)
In short a reality that is fun, you can start writing more and more words after that, there is a single word in language that can sum up what you want.
You want to have fun.
But because fun is what you do in life, it will be not a given in life, you will have to work for it, for whatever en devour you set your mind on.
(if fun was a given in life, what exactly do you all here think you would have to do in life?)
And, I now shocking, you can have fun and be honest, or you can have fun and be dishonest.
And, even more shocking, the ones who have fun and be dishonest, are doing this because this way it is easier for them to have fun than doing it honestly.
And, the greatest shock of all, society is getting taken on a ride throughout the entire human history, because “dishonest fun humans” get to positions of influence in society. How? You guessed it! By having dishonest fun.
Anything you can all imagine here, is either honest fun (regardless right or wrong) or dishonest fun (regardless right or wrong, again) , or does any of you think they do something other than this?
Come on, dude. Your first two sentences are literally telling us how to imagine. It’s a cop-out to say you need us to use your imagination. I genuinely can’t tell what the fuck you’re trying to discuss. And usually I can tell, so I think the communication failure is on your part.
But I’ll take you as you say. Bullshit that it’s paradise to be laughing honestly at all times. YOU WOULD GET HUNGRY, because you can’t eat while laughing honestly. You would go mad from lack of sleep. Your abdominal muscles would be in agony after the first hour, and ten thousand hours later, no matter how honest the laughter, you’d also be begging for the sweet release of oblivion.
Neither of your scenarios is a paradise, but after a day of your “always laughing” horror, yeah, I’d do just about anything to transfer over to an existence with no honest laughter. And so would you.
Honestly, good luck in your future endeavors, AlexPontik. I’m’a bow out of the thread.
You might be trying to have a discussion about human consciousness, free will or machine intelligence. Damned if I know. So far the only real intent I’m discerning is a need to Socratically baby-step us all toward some unique insight. Fortunately for your thread, there are those willing to put in more work to figure it out. And kinder in their response to your unprompted tutelage.
Something you may find quite helpful in your continuing efforts to communicate your thinking would be one of the widely available online English composition & grammar courses. The syntax and grammar of whatever language in which you communicate are the tools you use not only to impart, but also to construct your reasoning. If others aren’t picking up the wisdom you believe you’re laying down, it may be because they can’t recognize it.
From the individual’s point of view, one knows if the fun he/she has is honest or dishonest.
Because when one doesn’t know if he/she is honest , then one has problems (I don’t think I need to argue more here, but feel free to comment, if more clarifications are needed)
From a third person’s point of you, people would judge the individual, and decide, on their own, whether that individual is honest, or not.
What will happen after that in specific, I don’t know.
But at a certain point, if the individual’s actions affect other people negatively, then they will find out.
When that happens, I don’t know either, but it follows logically that this will happen.
Why? Because in the end if people didn’t find what affected them negatively, then it didn’t affect them negative, did it? (the question is should the argument go somewhere else and I am wrong?)
In the example you mention regarding the sociopath.
I’ll use the definition google provided:
From the sociopath’s point of view, he/she is having honest fun. When he/she is not having honest fun, even the sociopath knows, because when the sociopath doesn’t know, the sociopath has problems.
Usually sociopaths are considered skilled at being sociopaths, so I would argue that they know when they lie, they just don’t care.
From a third person’s point of view, he/she is a sociopath, and nothing else.
My point of view is also that, namely that a sociopath, is…well…a sociopath.
Paradise is where everyone is laughing honestly at all times, is not the same as
Paradise is where everyone is always laughing honestly.
Where everyone is always laughing honestly, when one is laughing, one is always honest.
Where everyone is laughing honestly at all times, there is no time when someone isn’t laughing.