I Am That I Am & Those Religious Movements

[Ssel]

I would say it is the opposite.

Always so quick to blame. I would be glad to debate this issue in a civil manner presenting evidence of exacty who did what and in what order.

 

Arrange a proper place to debate the isue, and I'll be glad to show who has been doing what.

 

Else, you will continue to blame merely ME because I am the one who has the idea that people might want to think and see reality rather than merely leave their church to start another one under a different flag.

[NotBlinded]

We stopped them from bullying, then went after the root causes.

I see what you are saying. But most of all, I agree with this. I just think that there has to be a point where one can understand where the bully is coming from (the root causes) and to forgive them because they didn't know any better at the time. Maybe I'm a dreamer???

 

How much power does a bully have if one doesn't let their buttons be pushed? Maybe we are saying the same thing? Could not reacting to the bully be the same as fighting back? Not letting them push your buttons? (Sheesh...all this and we are saying the same thing?)

[crazy-tiger]

We stopped them from bullying, then went after the root causes.

I see what you are saying. But most of all, I agree with this. I just think that there has to be a point where one can understand where the bully is coming from (the root causes) and to forgive them because they didn't know any better at the time. Maybe I'm a dreamer???

Oh yes... but you can't really do that while they're still at it.

 

I think that is where we mis-understood each other... and I can see I wasn't that clear in the first place. Guess I'm mainly to blame for that screw-up...

[NotBlinded]

We stopped them from bullying, then went after the root causes.

I see what you are saying. But most of all, I agree with this. I just think that there has to be a point where one can understand where the bully is coming from (the root causes) and to forgive them because they didn't know any better at the time. Maybe I'm a dreamer???

Oh yes... but you can't really do that while they're still at it.

 

I think that is where we mis-understood each other... and I can see I wasn't that clear in the first place. Guess I'm mainly to blame for that screw-up...

No, not at all! Look above, I revised my post before I noticed this one. HA! I love this place and I love the way misunderstandings are just that. No blame required!

[Ouroboros]

I would say it is the opposite.

Always so quick to blame. I would be glad to debate this issue in a civil manner presenting evidence of exacty who did what and in what order.

 

Arrange a proper place to debate the isue, and I'll be glad to show who has been doing what.

 

Else, you will continue to blame merely ME because I am the one who has the idea that people might want to think and see reality rather than merely leave their church to start another one under a different flag.

What is this about blame? What did I blame you about? I only argued aginst one of your arguments.

 

Man, you're paranoid too!

 

And your pride is easily hurt!

 

So who's arguing with "emotionalism" now?

[NotBlinded]

Oh crap...it's the cycle of blame.

[crazy-tiger]

No, not at all! Look above, I revised my post before I noticed this one. HA! I love this place and I love the way misunderstandings are just that. No blame required!

 

This is one of the things I like about here... it's so damn easy to edit at the same time someone's quoting you.

 

 

 

And yes, in a way, not reacting comes under the heading of fighting back... (yep, we were saying the same thing all along )

 

Oh crap...it's the cycle of blame.

Hey, let me get on that... I need to get more excercise.

[Ssel]

Hans, present the topic so it will be legit. Stay on topic and insist that EVERYONE ELSE do the same. And I will be glad to show you what you're asking about. Else, you are just continuing what she called the "blame cycle"

 

But expect to be embarrassed.

[NotBlinded]

No, not at all! Look above, I revised my post before I noticed this one. HA! I love this place and I love the way misunderstandings are just that. No blame required!

 

This is one of the things I like about here... it's so damn easy to edit at the same time someone's quoting you.

 

 

 

And yes, in a way, not reacting comes under the heading of fighting back... (yep, we were saying the same thing all along )

 

Oh crap...it's the cycle of blame.

Hey, let me get on that... I need to get more excercise.

You want to see something more funny? Go up to post 51 and read the last paragraph that I added while you were quoting me earlier. It talks about blame and then read where blame has been mentioned after that. Crap...I just noticed I mentioned blame in post 47 also.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, present the topic so it will be legit. Stay on topic and insist that EVERYONE ELSE do the same. And I will be glad to show you what you're asking about. Else, you are just continuing what she called the "blame cycle"

 

But expect to be embarrassed.

For being so smart you are extremely confused!

 

I told you in another topic under the Colosseum section to stay on topic, I didn't ask you to stay on topic in this thread!

 

This thread is in the Lion's Den and is allowed to sidestep.

 

Where, oh, where is your logic now?

 

Colosseum has some rules like "stay on topic", "behave" and such, while the Lion's Den (where we are now) doesn't have that.

 

Do you get it?

 

This is what you said in THIS thread:

 

Always trust your emotions because they don't lie, but the cause of the emotion is what is sometimes blurred.

Emm... Emotion causes blindness, no two ways about that. The point is to calm them down such that no one emotional concern so out weighs the others that blindness leads to stupidity.

 

And this is how I started my response:

Emotion does not causes blindness. Some emotions could cause blindness, like "blind rage", severe depression or mania. But to dismiss all emotions as wrong and dangerous, is in itself dangerous.

 

Give me the logical and factual proof that emotions are bad and should be removed.

 

...(and more)...

 

Why are you so scared of feeling?

Where did I blame you?

 

Where did I tell you to stay on topic?

 

I only responded MY opinion about your post, and you're the one getting all emotional about.

 

Yes, I get emotional about it, so what? I have an excuse... I can if I want to, because I don't claim being unattached and unemotional about my arguments.

 

While at the same time you claim emotions are bad. For instance this is what you said: "Emotion causes blindness, no two ways about that". That's what YOU said!!! Are you going back on your own words?

[Ssel]

You are SO grossly over simplifying the subject of emotion, logic, how the mind is driven, and ME, that I am too overwhelmed to even know where to begin straightening all of that out.

 

I would say it is the opposite. You are the one simplifying the subject of emotions by declaring other people being driven by emotionalism as soon as their opinion doesn't fit your personal agenda.

After I stated that I wasn't even going to reply, YOU BLAMED...

 

"I would say it is the opposite." - BLAME (no foundation)

 

"You are the one simplifying the subject of emotions.." - BLAME (no evidence)

 

".. by declaring other people being driven by emotionalism" - BLAME (no examples or surrounding circumstances)

 

".. as soon as their opinion doesn't fit your personal agenda." - BLAME (accusation of having an agenda)

 

 

Four counts and that is only from one post on THIS thread.

 

Your reply to an offer to discuss this without blame being the only topic but actual evidence and THINKING was..

 

"For being so smart you are extremely confused!" - BLAMING again

 

..as though to say "Who ME? I never blamed anyone for ANYthing, Ssel you must just be confused."

 

NOW, explain how ANY of this is even slightly associated with the actual TOPIC at hand?

[NotBlinded]

With understanding comes forgiveness and with forgiveness comes peace.

[Ssel]

With understanding comes forgiveness and with forgiveness comes peace.

EXACTLY.

 

but society doesn't want peace right now. It wants conflict and confusion.

 

THAT is why I said to calm the emotions to the point that..

"NO ONE EMOTION SO OUTWEIGHS THE OTHERS SUCH THAT BLINDNESS RESULTS."

 

..yet another part of my post that you quoted yourself but didn't even bother to think about before you rambled on about how little you know about basic psychology.

 

___________

 

{{of course I mean all of this in the LEAST emotional way}}

[NotBlinded]

With understanding comes forgiveness and with forgiveness comes peace.

EXACTLY.

 

but society doesn't want peace right now. It wants conflict and confusion.

 

THAT is why I said to calm the emotions to the point that..

"NO ONE EMOTION SO OUTWEIGHS THE OTHERS SUCH THAT BLINDNESS RESULTS."

 

..yet another part of my post that you quoted yourself but didn't even bother to think about before you rambled on about how little you know about basic psychology.

You're right, I know very little about basic psychology. (I know...just jabbing you a little since I lost my buttons!)

[Ssel]

Oops, sorry for the confusion, I was still talking to Hans

 

[NotBlinded]

Oops, sorry for the confusion, I was still talking to Hans

 

That is why I said I know...although I did have some doubts but then deleted the post I just posted that said I thought we came to an understanding. Understanding is so important!

[Ouroboros]

After I stated that I wasn't even going to reply, YOU BLAMED...

 

"I would say it is the opposite." - BLAME (no foundation)

 

"You are the one simplifying the subject of emotions.." - BLAME (no evidence)

 

".. by declaring other people being driven by emotionalism" - BLAME (no examples or surrounding circumstances)

 

".. as soon as their opinion doesn't fit your personal agenda." - BLAME (accusation of having an agenda)

 

 

Four counts and that is only from one post on THIS thread.

 

Your reply to an offer to discuss this without blame being the only topic but actual evidence and THINKING was..

 

"For being so smart you are extremely confused!" - BLAMING again

 

..as though to say "Who ME? I never blamed anyone for ANYthing, Ssel you must just be confused."

 

NOW, explain how ANY of this is even slightly associated with the actual TOPIC at hand?

Here's one more blame: You're so completely missing the point! I'm shocked that you're logic doesn't help you realize this!

 

And another blame: I actually held you in high regards until now and even defended your existence on this board, but the last couple of posts has changed my mind.

 

And now for another blame: I'm starting to have doubts about who you say you are.

[Ssel]

Here's one more blame:...

And another blame:..

And now for another blame:..

So MORE blaming justifies your intial jumping to conclusions and blaming?

 

You're missing the point, IF YU ARE GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT, GIVE THE EVIDENCE AND REASONING!

 

now look at that statement..

 

"You're missing the point.." - BLAME

"IF YOU ARE GOING TO..." - The reasoning involved in the BLAME.

 

Get it?

[Ouroboros]

Okay, I'll give you a fair chance. Explain what you mean in this quote:

 

Always trust your emotions because they don't lie, but the cause of the emotion is what is sometimes blurred.

Emm... Emotion causes blindness, no two ways about that. The point is to calm them down such that no one emotional concern so out weighs the others that blindness leads to stupidity.

 

Do you mean emotions causes blindness, or do you not?

 

I interpreted your statement that emotions causes blindness, did I get it wrong?

[Ssel]

Emotion causes blindness, no two ways about that.

What I meant by that was that such is SO commonly known that I didn't really expect any argument.

The point is to calm them down such that no one emotional concern so out weighs the others that blindness leads to stupidity.

What I meant by that part was that emotions are fine. And if you had read many of my other posts, you would see where I have stated something that you have probably never heard before which was, "you can not have higher intelligence, especially consciousness WITHOUT emotion, it can not, CAN NOT, be done even in a machine."

 

Thus the emotions are actually absolutely required. It is ONLY when they get out of balance that they become a blinding effect. This happens because even on very low levels (jumping to conclusions), the mind doesn't look at the "other side" or other options just so that it can go along with an over grown emotion (going along with the crowd).

 

This is why it takes courage (the lack of fear) to stand against the crowd when they are in the wrong.

 

This is exactly like having one political party driving all government actions. It is why they have minority rights and vote percentages rather than the simple idea that majority rules period.

 

If only one party rules a nation, then the nation becomes blind to the needs of the others. The one party is glad of such, but the nation ends up falling in its blindness because it never looked or tried what the others were expressing a need of.

 

"emotionism" - is about TOO much emotion in some selected direction. It has nothing to do with absolute no emotion and I have several times explained that you MUST have emotion to have higher intelligence period.

 

As I said, you GROSSLY over simplified the subject and ME. - was I wrong?

[crazy-tiger]

Emotion causes blindness, no two ways about that.

What I meant by that was that such is SO commonly known that I didn't really expect any argument.

The point is to calm them down such that no one emotional concern so out weighs the others that blindness leads to stupidity.

What I meant by that part was that emotions are fine. And if you had read many of my other posts, you would see where I have stated something that you have probably never heard before which was, "you can not have higher intelligence, especially consciousness WITHOUT emotion, it can not, CAN NOT, be done even in a machine."

 

Thus the emotions are actually absolutely required. It is ONLY when they get out of balance that they become a blinding effect. This happens because even on very low levels (jumping to conclusions), the mind doesn't look at the "other side" or other options just so that it can go along with an over grown emotion (going along with the crowd).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you should have put "Emotion can cause blindness, no two ways about that."

 

That would avoid the absoluteness of "Emotion causes blindness" and would fit in more with what you meant.

 

 

 

It would appear that what you meant and what you wrote were two different things...

 

So MORE blaming justifies your intial jumping to conclusions and blaming?

 

You're missing the point, IF YU ARE GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT, GIVE THE EVIDENCE AND REASONING!

 

now look at that statement..

 

"You're missing the point.." - BLAME

"IF YOU ARE GOING TO..." - The reasoning involved in the BLAME.

 

Get it?

Ssel... drop the emotionalism.

 

 

 

 

*makes note to give the exact same amount of evidence and reasoning for the statement of emotionalism that Ssel does*

[Ouroboros]

So why didn't you explain this after my first post arguing against your generic statement? From reading your post above, you're pretty much in agreement with me, so what's the whole deal with "you blame me" thing, and "let's see who's going to be ashamed?" You could have easily said what you said above, that I misunderstood you. So why didn't you immediately? You really like to play the strings of emotion and then blame people for being emotionalists! You blame people and then arguing that they blame you!

 

You have to agree that the statement that "emotions make you blind" is a blatant generalization without grounds or facts. There's no proof for such, and to state that and claim I have to prove the opposite with facts is ridiculous! My mistake was that I should have asked you to provide the facts that such statement is true! But now you agree with me! So you tell me, was I wrong?

 

And concerning the point if we keep our discussion on track of the topic or not, you have not really understood the difference between the "Lion's Den" and the "Colosseum", and I recommend that you take a little time to ponder about why we have so many different sections on this site, and what the differences are.

 

-- edit---

 

Oops! Tiger!!! You jump in between!!!

 

My post is for Ssel further up.

 

 

And CT, Ramon to what you said.

 

The beauty is that I can use emotionalism in any argument I want. I can become emotional and passionate about what I believe, think and say if I so want. Why? Because I don't claim I don't have to.

[Ssel]

So why didn't you explain this after my first post arguing against your generic statement?

Because the topic of emotion could easily fill 50 pages of these threads. I only explained a small portion here. But before I go much further, please answer my question, "was I wrong?"

 

You could have easily said what you said above, that I misunderstood you. So why didn't you immediately? You really like to play the strings of emotion and then blame people for being emotionalists! You blame people and then arguing that they blame you!

You had made SO many false accusations and explanations that as I SAID, I was "overwhelmed" with how much there was to clarify. You jumped to conclusions (an emotional result) and made accusations and proposed to back them up with more jumped to conclusions. That was the first time since I have been here that I simply said "too much to clarify" And I was done.

 

You have to agree that the statement that "emotions make you blind" is a blatant generalization without grounds or facts.

The technical accuracy of what I said is still exactly right. The point to minimizing the emotions is just to reduce the blindness that EVERY emotion is causing such that blindness can be avoided (as much as possible). In reality EVERY emotion is blindness itself. This is a requirement of the mind, there is no choice except to try to balance the variety by never allowing any feeling to get too much control. FEAR is the biggest culprit resulting in pride/ego, peer pressure, anger, depression, and many others.

So you tell me, was I wrong?

Yes.

 

And concerning the point if we keep our discussion on track of the topic or not, you have not really understood the difference between the "Lion's Den" and the "Colosseum", and I recommend that you take a little time to ponder about why we have so many different sections on this site, and what the differences are.

Probably false accusation. I think I well know the difference, but if there is something that I am missing, then please point it out. But the issue of staying on topic is one that I do NOT think I have mis-represented.

 

Even in the Lion's den, although MORE deviation and emotionalism is allowed, the topic shouldn't be totally derailed as it is on this one now. In the Lion's Den, I seldom call anyone down about emotionalism, I merely raise how self defeating it is, which would be allowed because it is the Lion's Den and such a deviation of topic is allowed "for SHORT periods".

 

I would be glad to explain everything you ever wanted to know about emotion from nuts to bolts, but it is a BIG subject that starts boringly logical and builds to exactly where the problems come into play, then to how they affect everything else.

[Ssel]

*makes note to give the exact same amount of evidence and reasoning for the statement of emotionalism that Ssel does*

That would be a GREAT idea, but you and I both know that you won't really do that.

 

But your norm is to simply and mindlessly try to apply posts back at the person you don't like even though they actually make no sense after you have left out the topic and circumstances. But I can easily imagine you giggling as you think that you have done something clever.

 

I expect you will do the same this time too, as you always do. Do I really need to show you all the times you know that you have done this? How much pretending are you going to forgive yourself of?

[crazy-tiger]

*makes note to give the exact same amount of evidence and reasoning for the statement of emotionalism that Ssel does*

That would be a GREAT idea, but you and I both know that you won't really do that.

I just have...

But your norm is to simply and mindlessly try to apply posts back at the person you don't like even though they actually make no sense after you have left out the topic and circumstances. But I can easily imagine you giggling as you think that you have done something clever.

Moi? Giggling?

 

And about the majority of my last post that was extremely relevent to the topic at hand? Oh, nothing on that?

Someone would think that you're simply and mindlessly trying "to apply posts back at the person you don't like even though they actually make no sense after you have left out the topic and circumstances."

I expect you will do the same this time too, as you always do. Do I really need to show you all the times you know that you have done this? How much pretending are you going to forgive yourself of?

Laddie, if you can show me a single post where it is undeniable that I have dragged it back to the subject of you without it being in reply to someone else who's just done the same, I'll be surprised.

 

On the contrary, I follow where the topic, posts and circumstances lead...

 

 

 

By the way... where is the evidence for me "simply and mindlessly try to apply posts back at the person you don't like even though they actually make no sense after you have left out the topic and circumstances"?

 

Or are you going to offer the usual amount of evidence that is the norm with you?

 

Even in the Lion's den, although MORE deviation and emotionalism is allowed, the topic shouldn't be totally derailed as it is on this one now. In the Lion's Den, I seldom call anyone down about emotionalism, I merely raise how self defeating it is, which would be allowed because it is the Lion's Den and such a deviation of topic is allowed "for SHORT periods".

And now you are laying down the rules for our home?

 

Just so you know, I was part of the process that resulted in the creation of the Lions Den, and the basic rule is anything goes... (with the obvious restrictions of the general forum rules)

 

In essence, deviation of topic is allowed for as long as the thread is alive.

I think I well know the difference, but if there is something that I am missing, then please point it out. But the issue of staying on topic is one that I do NOT think I have mis-represented.

Well, you're wrong.

 

 

 

 

Please note that I am just answering your posts... any derailing is a result of where your posts are leading.