Which one is paradise for you, which one is hell, and where do you think you live?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Okay, see, that’s the clarification I was asking for. You’re not using adverbs correctly: “always” and “honestly” both modify “laughing,” the way you wrote it, leading to the interpretation I had. That’s why I asked if it were supernatural. You need to rephrase your question if you want to ask whether I’d prefer to be around people whose laughter is always honest laughter when it comes.

And even then, your question has an undefined premise: what is “dishonest laughter”? Is it laughter that intends to deceive the listener? Are you familiar with the research on social laughter, and how does this research inform your question?

22

Well, at least you understand the problem people have with your posts.

23

Missing your classroom, are you? :smiley:

24

Time goes slowly, but carries on
And now the best years have come and gone
You took me by surprise
I didn’t realize that you were laughing

If you look at “laughing” long enough you become convinced that it should be pronounced “logging”, and where does that leave us?

25

Why would people be laughing honestly in hell? Why wouldn’t they be laughing honestly in Paradise?

Regards,
Shodan

26

So which Perv Level is this?

27

Well, not entirely.

(I know I said I was bowing out, but some ideas are crucial to the GD forum, chiefly, the rules of the language and graphics we use in these discussions. So here’s my $.02)

Words have definitions; they signify things or actions or aesthetics, etc. Words are placeholders for our consideration of reality. Their precise meanings are contained in how we use those words within a language.

So, in using words we impart meaning contextually, syntactically and semiotically.

Context - If I type “fun” in the proposition for a debate topic, I might be addressing the formality or whimsy of the topic itself, I might otherwise be dealing with “fun” as a concept for consideration or I might be merely promoting the participation of others. If I use it while listing my own reasons for participating in a thread, I’m denoting my relative enjoyment of the argument.

(Example: Reading the OP is not fun. Responding is fun, but rather empty. Cooperation from the OP in establishing the what-the-fucks and the who-did-whats might make the thread just a little bit funner.)

Syntax - If I use “fun” as a noun, I’m talking about an enjoyable state of being that can be utilized, influenced and altered. If I use the adjectival definition to modify a different noun, however, I’m universalizing and generalizing that state of being into a quality I expect that other thing to generate in the perceptions of others when they interact with it.

But if I offer that word up in a thesis as a stand in for an ideal I’ve conceptualized as a fundamental motivator for human behavior, I’m using it semiotically: it stimulates a specific set of ideas and emotions for me because I’ve attached them to that word. In order to impart that semiotic meaning to readers or listeners, I need to lead those people along the process through which I’ve derived or assigned the meaning.

Alex: that means that, for us to understand what you mean by “fun” you’ve got to construct that set of ideas and emotions in a way we can recognize. We’re glad to follow along, but you must give us a path. That will require iterative dialogue (a back and forth Question and Response attempt to establish a shared understanding) between you and interlocutors (your participants in the thread), not definitions or repetitions.

Otherwise, your respondents will continue having their own fun at cross purposes to whatever-the-fun your intent here is.

28

Perhaps he means for us to GLEAN what afflicts him…

29

AlexPontik. As others have said, there might be an interesting philosophical debate here, but the wrapper makes it unclear. A significant issue is the use of words in a way that is atypical to their usual context. As an example, suppose I were to ask “What physical parameters that define the human body make it easier to play the piano?” All of those words have a meaning, but the use of “physical parameters that define the human body” here is atypical for the context and obfuscate the intent, and in particular the use of the word parameters. If I ask the question as “What physical characteristics make it easier to play the piano?” suddenly it becomes crystal clear.

The other issue is the lack of conciseness. As Johnny Bravo kindly pointed out, try to boil things down to one direct question with no use of internal jargon.

For example, I think the debate is: If paradise requires a person to be happy by compulsion can it still be considered paradise (the gilded cage problem)? But honestly, I’m perhaps only about 10% sure that this is right.

I think having these kind of deep philosophical discussions can be interesting, and you’ll find plenty of participants for such here on the SDMB, but take a step back and try to improve the presentation.

30

One option for the world where nobody is laughing honestly is that nobody is laughing at all. That in turn could be because everyone is miserable, obviously, but could also be because we’re all in a state of awestruck serenity or sometihing.

I’m a solemn person overall and wouldn’t necessarily rule out the no-one’s-laughing world but I’d sure want to know details first. I don’t want to end up in a quiet room where people are intently whispering “don’t make waves, don’t make waves”, ya know?

As for the world in which I currently live, most people laugh when something hits them as funny, and that often has to do with tensions and surprise and juxtaposition; some of the humor, and the laughter, is mocking and cruel; some is desperate and maniacal, or nervous and hollow, but only the forced laughter where someone is laughing for effect or because it is expected of them would I characterize as “dishonest”. Then there’s the laughter of joy and delight; that exists in my world as well.

Umm, what was the question again?

31

So you’re quoting Humpty Dumpty as a reference in Great Debates?

That’s not how this board works.

32

I’m not a gentleman.

I know the answers to all your queries. Too bad I can’t reveal them. Sorry, I’m just one of the ‘wimmins’

Thanks so much.

Us girls just wanna have fun!

33

In Hell you get Carlin, Pryor, Bill Hicks, Mitch Hedberg… in Paradise it’s nothing but angels telling knock-knock jokes.

34

“Knock knock”
Who’s there?
“Orange!”
Heh. Orange wh–
“FRIVOLITY’S FOR SINNERS! YOU GO TO HELL!”

35

“Would you like to hear a joke!?”
“…hello, Zerachiel. Sure.”
“Knock knock.”
“Who’s there?”
“It’s me, Zerachiel!”

36

OK, I’ll play.

In my imagined paradise, everyone has a sense of humor, and honest laughter comes easily.

Therefore, you’ve posed a paradox. If there were an answer, it wouldn’t be a paradox.

37

This thread reminds me of my first joint.

38

Gentlemen, I want to play a game.

39

Theres at least 2 factors in our emotional well being.

  1. External circumstances
  2. Neurology

Technically you can put someone in hell and if you inject them with enough of the right drugs (heroin and MDMA) they’ll feel great. And if you put someone in heaven but you increase their CO2 levels until they have a severe panic attack they’ll hate it.

True paradise would have both circumstances and neurology primed for paradise.

40

Can’t even shout.
Can’t even cry.
The Gentlemen are coming by.