Upset about the statue

[mererdog]

17 minutes ago, Key said:

How is any attempt to put a smile on a stranger's face, or friends' and relatives', not an act of kindness?

An obvious example is when you want the other person to smile for your sake, rather than for their's. Like when you try to cheer up your crying cousin before you get into trouble for dropping him, you know? Kindness is inherently motivational, meaning it is less about what you try to do than why you try to do it. A con man who helps you out in order to set you up for the con is doing you no kindnesses, no matter how much you may benefit.

[VonNoble]

21 minutes ago, mererdog said:

I would not say that it failed to be kind. It simply wasnt an act of kindness. According to your story, you were motivated by amusement, not kindness. You were just having some fun, and your later reactions make it clear that you didn't really give much thought to how others would be affected. Kindness is simply not the word for that.

 

  I view my actions as a kindness.   Did then and still do....        

 

It is perfectly acceptable not to agree with that or to view it differently.   

 

von

[Brother Kaman]

6 hours ago, mererdog said:

Yet you are not always kind. Putting the hat on the statue was not an act of kindness, for example.

The value of guilt lies partly in its ability to cause us to rethink. It forces us to look beyond our motivations and at the consequences our actions have on others. Potential rewards can blind us to probable risk, so it is vital to have a mechanism in place that prompts us to focus on the negative side of every equation... Perhaps even moreso when the potential rewards are selfless in nature.

 

Also, just to be clear, guilt is an inescapable effect of empathy. If you are not a sociopath, guilt has been helping shape your personality since infancy. Looking at the difference between yourself and a sociopath, the influence seems to have been for the better.

No one is ALWAYS anything.

[mererdog]

17 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

No one is ALWAYS anything.

That's sort of an important fact, no?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

19 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

No one is ALWAYS anything.

 

Are you sure?  That sounds like an absolute.  

[Brother Kaman]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Are you sure?  That sounds like an absolute.  

Absolutely! 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

34 minutes ago, Brother Kaman said:

Absolutely! 

 

Seriously, outside of physics -- even then -- how often are absolutes true?  

[Key]

4 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Seriously, outside of physics -- even then -- how often are absolutes true?  

Always, until proven to be false.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 minutes ago, Key said:

Always, until proven to be false.

 

There is frequently an exception.  I don't want to say always.  Frequently.  For instance, the speed of light.  The speed of light is an absolute.  Except for quantum entanglement; which Einstein called "spooky action at a distance".

 

If even the speed of light has an exception -- how many absolutes are there?  Maybe death.  Even then, there might be disagreement.  That time seems to move in only one direction?  Maybe.  Unless it doesn't and we don't know about it.  

[Brother Kaman]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

There is frequently an exception.  I don't want to say always.  Frequently.  For instance, the speed of light.  The speed of light is an absolute.  Except for quantum entanglement; which Einstein called "spooky action at a distance".

 

If even the speed of light has an exception -- how many absolutes are there?  Maybe death.  Even then, there might be disagreement.  That time seems to move in only one direction?  Maybe.  Unless it doesn't and we don't know about it.  

In a binary universe, you are absolutely right.

[Key]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

There is frequently an exception.  I don't want to say always.  Frequently.  For instance, the speed of light.  The speed of light is an absolute.  Except for quantum entanglement; which Einstein called "spooky action at a distance".

 

If even the speed of light has an exception -- how many absolutes are there?  Maybe death.  Even then, there might be disagreement.  That time seems to move in only one direction?  Maybe.  Unless it doesn't and we don't know about it.  

If an exception is found, then it can't be absolute. Thus, people can be said to believe there really isn't any based on theories proven or not.

However, my statement may still hold true. Unless one cares to prove an absolute as false, along with acceptance of variables, an absolute will always be true.

Like that philosopher said about that cat in the box with the poison. Until one opens the box to find out, the cat can be both alive and dead. Thus, one can accept that it is absolutely alive, until proven otherwise.

Along those lines, an absolute is always true, until it is found and accepted not to be.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

52 minutes ago, Key said:

If an exception is found, then it can't be absolute. Thus, people can be said to believe there really isn't any based on theories proven or not.

However, my statement may still hold true. Unless one cares to prove an absolute as false, along with acceptance of variables, an absolute will always be true.

Like that philosopher said about that cat in the box with the poison. Until one opens the box to find out, the cat can be both alive and dead. Thus, one can accept that it is absolutely alive, until proven otherwise.

Along those lines, an absolute is always true, until it is found and accepted not to be.

 

 

I never really understood the whole Shrodinger's  cat thing. To my understanding, the correct answer is simply -- we don't know if the cat is alive or dead.  The cat can not be alive and dead.   We don't know which is the case.  Only that it can not be both at the same time.   In the same way,  it is possible to not know if something is absolute -- because we don't know. 

 

It is odd, that people insist on having a definitive answer, without regard to it being true or not.  As in -- if there's no God, then how come _____________  ?

 

 

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

There is frequently an exception.  I don't want to say always. 

If the rule is that there is an exception to every rule, there must be an exception to that rule.

The only way for every rule to have an exception... 

is for not every rule to have an exception...

Only true if not true.

 

I believe some things are absolutes. It makes more sense to me. Now, if only I had a reliable way to tell which things are the absolutes....

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

25 minutes ago, mererdog said:

If the rule is that there is an exception to every rule, there must be an exception to that rule.

The only way for every rule to have an exception... 

is for not every rule to have an exception...

Only true if not true.

 

I believe some things are absolutes. It makes more sense to me. Now, if only I had a reliable way to tell which things are the absolutes....

 

The old lyer's  paradox.  "Everything I say is a lie.  You can believe that."

Edited January 4, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

I never really understood the whole Shrodinger's  cat thing. To my understanding, the correct answer is simply -- we don't know if the cat is alive or dead.  The cat can not be alive and dead.   We don't know which is the case.  Only that it can not be both at the same time.   In the same way,  it is possible to not know if something is absolute -- because we don't know. 

 

It is odd, that people insist on having a definitive answer, without regard to it being true or not.  As in -- if there's no God, then how come _____________  ?

 

 

I'm not insisting that I'm right. After all, I did say my statement MAY still hold true.

It's kind of like that faith thing, folks can place faith upon virtually anything, until someone comes around and shows it's misplaced. Which is what I'm saying about absolutes.

And it's true, we don't know everything, nor do we know how much we actually do, until we learn something new.

I often think definitives can be ever looping like the question "why". One can come up with an answer to the "how come...", only to face another question with similar phrasing. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Key said:

I'm not insisting that I'm right. After all, I did say my statement MAY still hold true.

It's kind of like that faith thing, folks can place faith upon virtually anything, until someone comes around and shows it's misplaced. Which is what I'm saying about absolutes.

And it's true, we don't know everything, nor do we know how much we actually do, until we learn something new.

I often think definitives can be ever looping like the question "why". One can come up with an answer to the "how come...", only to face another question with similar phrasing. 

 

Fair enough.  I think we are more in agreement than disagreement.  

[mererdog]

On 1/4/2018 at 4:43 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The old lyer's  paradox.  "Everything I say is a lie.  You can believe that."

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but a watch set one second fast is never right. That is conclusive proof that a wrong answer can be more valuable than a right answer, provided you know why it is wrong.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 1/6/2018 at 11:32 AM, mererdog said:

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but a watch set one second fast is never right. That is conclusive proof that a wrong answer can be more valuable than a right answer, provided you know why it is wrong.

 

 

Unless it's on military time.  Then it's only right, once a day.