I want society to be fair to its individuals

[Green Xenon]

When dealing with a cold-hearted non-disabled adult human being of society, I am determined:

 

1. To stoop down to his/her level

2. *Not* to be the bigger/better person

 

I also feel like cancelling his/her cold-heartedness with my hot-heartedness

 

I believe in fairness -- and hate with a passion -- N E cold-hearted non-disabled adult human who knowingly/willingly perpetrates unfairness.

 

A cold-heart gains pleasure, humor, and happiness from misusing his/her power.

 

A hot-heart [like me] wishes for such injustices -- perpetrated by cold-hearts -- to disappear and wishes for the angels to descend from heaven and punish these cold-hearts by causing these cold-hearts to endure eternal suffering of immeasurable intensity. Sadly, my fairy-tale wish is way too good to ever be true.

 

BTW, I maybe adult and human -- however, I am disabled. My handicap is Asperger's syndrome.

[swansont]

Define "fair"

 

You, for instance, had previously suggested that because you have a handicap that you should be treated differently than everyone else, as some sort of compensation. Now, is it "fair" to treat you the same as everyone else, or is it "fair" to treat you differently?

[mooeypoo]

When dealing with a cold-hearted non-disabled adult human being of society, I am determined:

 

1. To stoop down to his/her level

That's rather condescending, which I guess it makes this:

 

2. *Not* to be the bigger/better person

a success.

 

I also feel like cancelling his/her cold-heartedness with my hot-heartedness

 

I believe in fairness -- and hate with a passion -- N E cold-hearted non-disabled adult human who knowingly/willingly perpetrates unfairness.

 

 

Define fairness. You seem to define it as your personal view of fairness, and in this case you should, at the very least, consider there are competing definitions that are no worse than yours, and no better. Isn't that fair?

 

A cold-heart gains pleasure, humor, and happiness from misusing his/her power.

 

A hot-heart [like me] wishes for such injustices -- perpetrated by cold-hearts -- to disappear and wishes for the angels to descend from heaven and punish these cold-hearts by causing these cold-hearts to endure eternal suffering of immeasurable intensity. Sadly, my fairy-tale wish is way too good to ever be true.

Are we talking about literal angels?

 

 

BTW, I maybe adult and human -- however, I am disabled. My handicap is Asperger's syndrome.

 

That doesn't excuse stubbornly ignoring other people's opinions, claims, evidence and counter-points. Quite to the contrary. Aspergers syndrome is a social interaction disorder. We really shouldn't "go easy on you" when your claims go against evidence just because you have a disorder. If anything, you knowing you have this condition should make you want to be a bit less stubborn in learning new things.

 

You're trying to eat the cake and leave it whole. We are either giving you preferential treatment (which isn't "fair" and "equal") or we're treating you as the equal man that you ARE (as many people with aspergers want, by the way, and justly so) and you get off the request to treat you differently.

 

Consistency.

 

~mooey

[Green Xenon]

Define fairness.

 

Fairness means equal-treatment but not necessarily exactly the same.

 

Fairness means, if you treat people differently, you provide this differential-treatment based on the following:

 

1. Age

2. Behavior

3. Strengths/weaknesses

4. Abilities/Disabilities

5. Size

 

If two people are exactly the same in all above 5 categories, you treat them exactly the same.

 

On the other hand, if you see a 5-year-old kid and a 15-year-old kid get into an altercation, you side with the younger kid -- regardless of who instigated the situation. This is called "reasonable discrimination" and I'm totally for it. The older kid is not only physically-stronger than the younger kid, but also has a better understanding of right vs. wrong, than the younger kid. So, in all fairness, you should discipline the kid of 15 while protecting the kid of 5.

 

Are we talking about literal angels?

 

An angel is a hypothetical entity that fights evil and wins. Sadly, angels don't exist.

[mooeypoo]

I really don't get it.

 

You advocate to ignore differences (in your gender thread) and treat kids equally regardless of their gender differences.

 

And now you say we need to treat people according to their differences.

 

.... Which is it, again?

[Green Xenon]

I really don't get it.

 

You advocate to ignore differences (in your gender thread) and treat kids equally regardless of their gender differences.

 

And now you say we need to treat people according to their differences.

 

.... Which is it, again?

 

Gender is a not a valid reason to treat kids differently. Much like treating kids according to race, ethnicity, religion, skin-color, national-origin -- are also invalid.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Gender is a not a valid reason to treat kids differently.

Why not? There are legitimate physiological and neurological differences between genders.

[swansont]

Gender is a not a valid reason to treat kids differently.

 

Baloney. As Cap'n and others have repeatedly noted, there are difference between the genders. You don't get anywhere by blatantly ignoring this because of a personal bias or grudge.

 

Much like treating kids according to race, ethnicity, religion, skin-color, national-origin -- are also invalid.

 

 

We do treat people differently based on race, ethnicity, religion, skin-color, national-origin; what we (supposedly) don't validly do is discriminate based on those attributes. For example, you wouldn't offer a pork sandwich to a person whose religion precludes the eating of pork (assuming you are polite and aware of the religion), so you do treat them differently. You would not assume that a person of African lineage (among others) was not more prone to sickle-cell anemia than someone of northern European lineage.

[JustinW]

I'm going to comment on this against my better judgement.

 

First this, "I want society to be fair to its individuals". I have been known to claim that society isn't fair, nor should it be. But I will have to admitt that certain circumstances can imminate that require a fairness factor. Such as taking care of those who are unable to take care of themselves, like your 15 on 5 year old scenario.

 

Again whenever I hear someone say they want fairness, I think of the old saying "want in one hand, s**t in the other and see which one fills up the fastest". A little crude I know, but the reality of it speaks for itself. This world is not fair and never will be. People are just going to have to accept that fact.

 

 

A cold-heart gains pleasure, humor, and happiness from misusing his/her power.

Wouldn't the pleasure, humor, and happiness from him/her misusing their power actually warm their heart renderring them warm-hearted? In my view a cold heart is indifferent.

 

 

And by your own views of cold heartedness, wouldn't your hatred be considered cold-hearted by an outsiders view? Unless you have some substantial justification for your outrage on society.

 

 

 

Also, what political connection does this have?

Edited April 9, 2012 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

A cold-heart gains pleasure, humor, and happiness from misusing his/her power.

This is all a matter of perspective.

 

I get the feeling you'd be absolutely and unequivocally happy if you suddenly had the power to strike dead anyone you felt wasn't being "fair". As the death toll rose, you'd probably gain an enormous amount of pleasure in misusing your power wielding the righteous sword of fairness, convinced you were justified as the-society-of-humans ran screaming from you.

 

Admit it, you're grinning just thinking about it. That's pretty cold-hearted from my perspective

[iNow]

I want society to be fair to its individuals

And I want a button on my keyboard that allows me to remotely punch users like you in the throat, but alas... I have suck it up and deal and continue forward in life despite not having one.

 

Said another way, "I want a pony."

[Green Xenon]

I get the feeling you'd be absolutely and unequivocally happy if you suddenly had the power to strike dead anyone you felt wasn't being "fair". As the death toll rose, you'd probably gain an enormous amount of pleasure in misusing your power wielding the righteous sword of fairness, convinced you were justified as the-society-of-humans ran screaming from you.

 

Wrong on so many counts.

 

If I had it my way, the jerk being unfair would suddenly end-up having his/her physiological-responses-to-psychological-states regulated by a supernatural-angelic-force that would make such an @$$hole incapable of perpetrating such unfairness. This cold-hearted non-disabled adult human being would badly-want to continue being unfair, he/she would try desperately to be unfair, but his/her psyche would be betrayed by his/her own body.

 

The result is a sadist who is bored and so bored that he/she wants to die. The sadist wants to inflict pain on defenseless beings but is totally-unable to.

 

In other words, I lose my displeasure from depriving otherwise-malicious human beings of the ability to act on their malicious intent. Note, I said I LOSE my *displeasure*, I don't GAIN any *pleasure*.

 

Once again, however, such miracles of justice are impossible.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Green Xenon

[doG]

I want society to be fair to its individuals.

Just be honest now, what you're really trying to say is that you want society to conform to your ideals instead of those driven by the consensus of society. That your perception of fairness is more applicable than anyone else's. That seems quite unfair to the consensus to me.

 

If I had it my way....

Thankfully you don't!

[Green Xenon]

Thankfully you don't!

 

"Thankfully"? How so? You, me, and all individuals of all ages, genders, and species would be a lot safer if humans with evil psyches were unable to physiologically-act on their evil intentions.

 

Think about it. You could walk at 1:00 AM in the inner city. Sure there would be evil gangsters how would want to torture and kill you -- simply because they are sick sadists. However, these gangsters wouldn't be able to act on their "wants" no matter how hard they tried, so you'd be totally-protected. Wouldn't you prefer that to the current state of affairs?

[doG]

"Thankfully"? How so? You, me, and all individuals of all ages, genders, and species would be a lot safer if humans with evil psyches were unable to physiologically-act on their evil intentions.

 

Think about it. You could walk at 1:00 AM in the inner city. Sure there would be evil gangsters how would want to torture and kill you -- simply because they are sick sadists. However, these gangsters wouldn't be able to act on their "wants" no matter how hard they tried, so you'd be totally-protected. Wouldn't you prefer that to the current state of affairs?

I vote in favor of free will!

[Green Xenon]

I vote in favor of free will!

 

So do I. Where did I say N E thing about wanting to eliminate, impair, or control free will?

 

Free-will is the ability to think in your own unique manner, to make your own choices and decisions. Physiologically-expressing-the-psychological-state is something completely different from "free will".

Edited April 9, 2012 by Green Xenon

[Phi for All]

Wrong on so many counts.

 

If I had it my way, the jerk being unfair would suddenly end-up having his/her physiological-responses-to-psychological-states regulated by a supernatural-angelic-force that would make such an @$hole incapable of perpetrating such unfairness. This cold-hearted non-disabled adult human being would badly-want to continue being unfair, he/she would try desperately to be unfair, but his/her psyche would be betrayed by his/her own body.

 

The result is a sadist who is bored and so bored that he/she wants to die. The sadist wants to inflict pain on defenseless beings but is totally-unable to.

 

In other words, I lose my displeasure from depriving otherwise-malicious human beings of the ability to act on their malicious intent. Note, I said I LOSE my *displeasure*, I don't GAIN any *pleasure*.

 

Once again, however, such miracles of justice are impossible.

You've gussied it up to make yourself sound noble and righteous, but it's essentially the same as saying, "Anyone who doesn't conform to my idea of fairness is going to die horribly!" And it also appears as though disabled people get an automatic reprieve in your world since they could NEVER be cold-hearted.

 

You have an active fantasy world going, so what happens to you when they can cure Asperger's with a pill? You'd be just another non-disabled person with a whole lot of hatred and a desire to impose his will on the rest of society.

[mooeypoo]

I think it's time you properly explained what you mean with "Physiologically-expressing-the-psychological-state" and "physiological-responses-to-psychological-states".

If I'm happy (psychological) and I smile (physiological) is this a 'physiological response to psychological state' ?

So, if I'm angry (psychological) and I rant, grunt, complain and argue, is this too a 'physiological response to psychological state' ?

What is this 'physiological-responses-to-psychological-states' and how do you propose it be 'regulated'?

 

[Green Xenon]

If I'm happy (psychological) and I smile (physiological) is this a 'physiological response to psychological state' ?

So, if I'm angry (psychological) and I rant, grunt, complain and argue, is this too a 'physiological response to psychological state' ?

The answer both your questions is "yes"

 

*Any* bodily response [whether somatic, visceral, autonomic, or voluntary] to a mental entity equates to "physiological response to psychological state"

 

Your heart-rate increasing in response to a terrifying-flashback is an example of "physiological response to psychological state". So is the facial-blushing when caused by embarrassment.

 

However, the following do NOT classify as "physiological response to psychological state":

 

1. Decrease in heart-rate following increased carotid pressure

2. Increase in respiratory-rate due to excess CO2

3. Yanking your hand away from a painfully-hot object before you even notice the pain

[mooeypoo]

When I get angry, my heart-rate quickens, it's not something I control.

 

What I do control is my reaction outside. Do I lash out or do I stay calm. Do I curse or do I force myself to be polite.. etc.

 

That's the difference between a child and and adult. The ability to control your reactions. It's how society mostly defines being "mature".

 

You usually can't control the instinctive physiological reaction. You can control the external manifestation.

 

In other words, and I have to say I'm a bit worried to ask, how do you propose we control these physiological functions? Do you propose we drug people?

[Green Xenon]

In other words, and I have to say I'm a bit worried to ask, how do you propose we control these physiological functions?

 

It's impossible, that is why I call it a "fantasy".

 

Angels descend from paradise and control those physiological-functions [in humans only] so that people are unable to do or say unfair things.

 

As a result, malicious-minded humans are extremely-bored and very-upset -- simply because they want to be evil but can't.

 

Wouldn't it be a miracle, if a villain wants to cause harm but is unable to? That's the most interesting form of punishment for such a bully. This would cause massive psychological trauma to the evil person, without physically-harming him/her to any extent. I'm totally for it but then a lot of what I want is impossible.

 

A "physiological response to a psychological state" is a "physiological response to a psychological state" -- regardless of whether is it voluntary or reflexive.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Green Xenon

[Xittenn]

I like the idea of being admonished from undue punishment incurred by others outside of law and order, but suppressing the actions of others is probably not very realistic from a political pov. What bothers me is that my right to self defense has been taken away from me in a very real way, right now. If I wanted to walk around publicly with a force field(bullet proof jacket/Kevlar suit) to protect myself from either gang violence or the local coyotes that roam around at 1:00AM, I am legally not allowed to do this. I think this is something that should be changed. As for verbal abuses it would be nice to have a real world ignore button, but there isn't one. Ear plugs are a sucky option. My point? I see what Green Xenon is saying even if it is unrealistic and I do try to find real solutions to these problems as I often feel I am the victim of unfair evilness!

[Green Xenon]

I like the idea of being admonished from undue punishment incurred by others outside of law and order, but suppressing the actions of others is probably not very realistic from a political pov. What bothers me is that my right to self defense has been taken away from me in a very real way, right now. If I wanted to walk around publicly with a force field(bullet proof jacket/Kevlar suit) to protect myself from either gang violence or the local coyotes that roam around at 1:00AM, I am legally not allowed to do this. I think this is something that should be changed. As for verbal abuses it would be nice to have a real world ignore button, but there isn't one. Ear plugs are a sucky option. My point? I see what Green Xenon is saying even if it is unrealistic and I do try to find real solutions to these problems as I often feel I am the victim of unfair evilness!

 

Thanks for further proving to others that the society-of-humans stinks badlier than the kakaa-of-humans. This stench grew oppressive ever since humans formed a society separate from their non-human ancestors.

 

Getting OT but has N E 1 [other than me] noticed that human kakaa stinks the badliest of all kakaa? Even tiger kakaa is roses compared to that of humans [i don't know this for a fact but I could easily guess correctly]. In addition, a poorly-hygienic-human will smell worse than a non-human animal with equally-poor -- or perhaps ever poorer -- hygiene.

[Mosheh Thezion]

I would say... we do not want fairness.... what we want.. is fair treatment... treatment... as if we are one big family.

the key part of this.. has to do.. with lending... and profiting off each other.... robbing each other by using money tactics.

I.. propose a simple fix.

From : --> url deleted

 

which reads... in part...

 

deleted by mod

[mooeypoo]

Thanks for further proving to others that the society-of-humans stinks badlier than the kakaa-of-humans. This stench grew oppressive ever since humans formed a society separate from their non-human ancestors.

 

Getting OT but has N E 1 [other than me] noticed that human kakaa stinks the badliest of all kakaa? Even tiger kakaa is roses compared to that of humans [i don't know this for a fact but I could easily guess correctly]. In addition, a poorly-hygienic-human will smell worse than a non-human animal with equally-poor -- or perhaps ever poorer -- hygiene.

 

Actually, you seem to be doing quite a good job of it yourself. Your insistence that society acts the way you THINK it acts, regardless of evidence or counter claims shows exactly who's who.

 

That said, I really do suggest that you drop the personal insults. If you can't argue anymore and that's the only resort you have, you may find yourself at the other side of the sealed door to this forum.

 

As you can see, we want to debate. There are certain issues we will not entertain you on, though, and civility is one of them.

 

Funny, seeing as you are the one who proposed it to begin with, but I stopped trying to find consistency in your threads.

 

~mooey

 

It's impossible, that is why I call it a "fantasy".

 

Angels descend from paradise and control those physiological-functions [in humans only] so that people are unable to do or say unfair things.

 

As a result, malicious-minded humans are extremely-bored and very-upset -- simply because they want to be evil but can't.

 

Wouldn't it be a miracle, if a villain wants to cause harm but is unable to? That's the most interesting form of punishment for such a bully. This would cause massive psychological trauma to the evil person, without physically-harming him/her to any extent. I'm totally for it but then a lot of what I want is impossible.

 

A "physiological response to a psychological state" is a "physiological response to a psychological state" -- regardless of whether is it voluntary or reflexive.

 

Those physiological responses aer what makes us human. They give us passion, conviction and the urge to go on. We should control them so we're not destructive, but I don't *want* to have my heart not pump faster when I'm angry or passionate about something. I don't *want* to not get the adrenaline rush when I hear of something I deem as unjust. I want to have those, because those make me who I am.

 

Whether you like it or not, they make you who you are too.

 

 

But even if that's not true, the fact we can't change it even if we want to (as you say, 'angels' don't exist) means this whole point of this whole thread is absolutely positively moot.

 

Did you start it just to rant, or is there a point to all of this? Or is it just your way of avoiding the points made in your original threads, the ones that crushed your non-evidenced claims to begin with?

 

You'd think we wouldn't notice.

 

~mooey