/fringe/ - Fringe

>One should never think that reason can sway the opinion of one's enemy, only clarify their position relative to you.

That is a very sensible point you make. I've read an article somewhere, and unfortunately forgot to save the link, about something called the "denial factor" or similar. What it boiled down to is that when people are confronted with evidence that a belief they hold is false or wrong, instead of changing their thoughts, they may instead simply cling on to them harder. Without getting into any sort of overly charged topics, if you believed that humans could survive breathing nothing but pure helium gas, and I showed you evidence and tests proving that they can't, you might then dismiss my evidence with a wave of your hand and believe all the harder in humans' ability to survive on helium alone.

I will take a moment to critique your dislike for homosexuals: There is hardly a semblence of a reason. You have this to say:

>So we skate around the issue instead of getting to the point; the sexual attraction of two people of the same gender is the main issue.

>For me that's all that matters on the issue. Homosexuality is disgusting and should be rejected for that alone. Anything else is rather inconsequential to the matter.

Your reason is your emotion. Your reason has no grounding in anything beyond your personal feelings. If your desire is to get other people to agree with you, than the only people that reasoning will catch are those who are "agreeable to [you] and [your] values". It does not bring any evidence to the table. It does not provide other people with more of a reason to dislike homosexuals. All you have is your emotion. That does not, of course, mean that you are wrong (nor does it mean that you are right), but you have not presented your argument in a way that is presentable to the rest of the world. Your feelings mean nothing to the rest of humanity, because nobody else can feel them. There are many questions that can be asked which make your argument fall apart and rely on nothing but "because I said so" statements, or force you to use the points that you claim are "skating around the main issue".

Therein lies your problem. You have not reached the limit of reason (if such a thing exists) because you have not even engaged in proper reasoning. Your emotions are not a valid argument in any way, shape, or form. They bring nothing of substance to the table. They do not affect anything other than your temperment. Do not expect other people to reason with you unless you bring valid reasoning of your own.

If you'd like to engage in debates with people about homosexuality or race mixing, I highly suggest you do lots of research and gather up as many facts as you can. Because, frankly, until you try to use facts and reasoning, you cannot say it has its limitations.

You also seem to be using the term "reasonability" as if it is something that can be measured. I am referring to the power of reason, to infer facts or conclusions from data. Please bring your facts and data if you wish to discuss reasoning.

>They just have different subjective values. …and subjectivity is not grounds for dismissal of anything at all, to claim that your values are objective and that others are not, is ridiculousness.

Here you commit a great fallacy. By stating that values are subjective and objectivity does not really exist, you have triviliazed your entire post and nothing but subjective blathering. There is absolutely no reason to believe that reason has its limits if you admit that objectivity does not exist, and thus that the content of your posts is nothing but subjectivity. You cannot attempt to claim things as universal truths while also claiming that objectivity is not real.

>>9320
Only reason killing and rape and physical harm and anything else is wrong is emotion, faggot. Homosexuality is disgusting is a the ONLY true reason to oppose it.

>>9588
So much for civil, educated discourse. But I will continue to make points, if only for the benefit of anyone else who might read this thread

>Only reason killing and rape and physical harm and anything else is wrong is emotion
False. Every person has some sort of value, and I am not referring to an emotion value. Every person spends money. A lot of people work jobs and procure goods and services. The people around you create the fabric of civilization that allows for the luxuries of the modern world. As thinking, rational beings, humans quickly learned long ago that destroying one another would only be crippling themselves. Humans do not kill other humans not because they particularly care about any random person they see walking down the street, but because they realize that it is to everyone's benefit that nobody kills anyone else. If killings were the societal norm, everyone would die, and nobody wants to be dead. To label a survival instinct as an emotion is downright foolish.

I sense you are trying to force me into a debate about homosexuality, though I have no intent to. If you truly wish to argue for an anti-homosexual side, your best bet would be to gather information about reasons why homosexuality destroys the fabric of civilization or is a threat to human lives. Try looking at AIDS rates among homosexuals. Referring to my previous point, every person is a commodity. People make the world go round, and while one person's death hardly makes a ripple in the pond, it does have an affect, no matter how small.

You seem to have strayed from the original topic of the post. If you would like to discuss more in-depth about WHY reason has its limits and how you have probed its limits to discover exactly what they are, feel free to do so. However, you have still not exercised the power of reason hardly at all, so I don't see how you're in much of a position to say it has its limits. Apply yourself to my arguments instead of posting inflammatory material.

>>9599
OP already gave reasons why homosexuality is bad including a thread on /tgjim/ with hundreds of stats, you just want to pretend a certain reason is not a reason.

>>9320
I'm a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Homosexuality is a sin, it is disgusting and reprehensible in and of itself, and if you simply do not agree then there's no use in going further in debate.

You say that I do not reason but I do – I am just straightforward right to the point.

If you want a bunch of stats about homosexuals >>>/tgjim/ .

Here's the thing though – if we were to argue about what causes homosexuality or is associated with homosexuality those things would be bad because of homosexuality. If eating grapes made you more likely to be a homosexual, that would make grapes bad.

If you think there's nothing wrong with homosexuality in and of itself there's nothing more to be discussed. Reason has hit its limit. All these other things which are incidental to homosexuality like diseases or deciding whether or not it's a mental disorder don't matter because they are missing the point.

Let us say for example that homosexuality is a mental disorder and you should hate homosexuals because of that; then I have two responses.

1. The concept of mental disorder is invalid anyways.
2. If mental disorders are real, they are not sufficient cause for me to hate homosexuals; I don't hate depressed people, anxious people, schizo people, etc.

…and so on we can go through all those stats.

Denial factor is irrelevant. You misunderstood even the point I made which you agreed with me.

When you talked about bringing evidence to the table; none has to be. All we need to know is the following which is a plain and undeniable truth; homosexuals are persons who are sexually attracted to the same gender and engage with sex with the same gender. A perfectly reasonable statement. …and it is on this one fact alone that my disgust is inspired.

Reason thus can not be taken any further here. Going about the irrelevant other reasons to hate homosexuality is a pointless endeavor. Something beyond reason is required to make you see things the same way as I do, reason won't change your mind about anything at all, if you think "homosexuality is bad because it spreads diseases" then we are not on the same page with each other at all. If anything AIDS and so on are the cure to homosexuality and promiscuity, I like AIDS because it kills off the degenerates. If you don't like those diseases and want to feel sad when it kills off a homosexual, you aren't thinking like I or any other WBC member is thinking.

My argument is solid. It does not fall apart. It is consistent – and I am sure that you accept the premise which is homosexuals are people attracted to and having sex with the same gender.

You say that I haven't reached the limit of reason – but I have. My reasoning supposedly is improper? No, it is truthful, and direct.

There is no need for reasoning beyond this for we have hit the limit of reason. There is no need for the facts; of which I have thousands and already provided for you but you ignored them.

Also only you believe in universal truths here and my talking about subjectivity does not destroy my argument at all but reinforces it.

>>>/tgjim/414

For the homosexual stats thread.

It's useless though. I don't want you to see homosexuals as "not bad at all if someone takes a dick up the ass, only this other stuff is bad". If you think homosexuals are bad because (insert stat/fact/whatever here) then it could be hypothesized that there be exceptions to your case like "faggots are ok as long as they keep it in the cloest" or "faggots are ok as long as they keep to one partner" or "faggots are ok as long as they don't spread disease".

NO. I don't want you thinking that. Faggots are NOT OK. PERIOD. The very fact of homosexuality in and of itself is a nasty thing. Homosexuals are bad because they have homosexual sex and lust.

Don't agree? Fine. That's it though for reason, that is the limit. Beyond this I have to do something else to truly make you see things as I do and that would have not be based in reason.

So concede then that I have found the limit of reason, why don't you?

Remember: Anders Behring Breivik was rational and sane. So were many others who did certain acts disagreeable to you. Faggots themselves can be perfectly reasonable despite their faggotry, they can recognize all the stats, they can know what homosexuality is, they can be fully aware of what they are doing; and be fine with it. There's no reasoning with them as such, reason fails to go any further.

So as I said earlier, reason only clarifies your position relative to each other. It doesn't persuade people to think the same way or follow the same course of action.

If you think reason doesn't end with faith, tell me your reason for something, and I will just question your long chain of reasons until you reach its base or create a circle.

I do not see why you would think that a human killing another can't be reasonable. It's based on a subjective idea that pissing off others, being harmed, dying, suffering, etc. are bad things.

Oh and btw everyone dies despite killing not being the societal norm.

>As thinking, rational beings, humans quickly learned long ago that destroying one another would only be crippling themselves. Humans do not kill other humans not because they particularly care about any random person they see walking down the street, but because they realize that it is to everyone's benefit that nobody kills anyone else.

This is called Utilitarianism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

You, as a utilitarian, can only make others agree with you if they are also utilitarians.

If they are not – then it's useless. You can go over everything and be in perfect agreement as to the facts, arrive at the same basic conclusions, but still be motivated to different actions.

As I said, reason only clarifies your position relative to each other. A hypothetical murderer and you could have a perfectly reasonable debate with each other, you could list a hundred different reasons as to why he should not kill you, he could agree that all of those reasons are correct – but he will still kill you because he's not a utilitarian like you and doesn't care if every fact you said is true and every consequence or potential consequence may come to pass.

…and it would not make him unreasonable at all, not any less than you. He may even demonstrate superior reason to you in that he may present a more consistent argument in his own paradigm, he may be even more up to date on the facts, etc. but it won't matter to saving your life.

>>>/pol/347559

Come here if anyone wants to debate this further, I believe I finally made my position perfectly clear there in that thread.

http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/life-is-a-disease-so-cut-the-bullshit-please/

How are actions reasonable or not?

What makes an action reasonable?

What makes an action unreasonable?

What does "reasonable" mean?

Does it mean only

1. "agreeable to you and your subjective values"

or does it mean

2. "consistent with the actors subjective values"?

or does it mean something else entirely which I do not comprehend at this time?

Can we not recognize reason in a person who violates our subjective values?

Can not two opposite courses of action, free of external influences, and only directed by internal values both be perfectly reasonable?

I think all actions can only be informed by reason but are decided upon by emotion which is inseparable to reason.

There is either nothing reasonable about suicide or living; or both are completely reasonable.

Likewise the same can be applied to any other course of action.

Everything ultimately boils down to muh feels. All of politics is muh feels; certainly some are better at arguing consistently and if you accept my second definition of reason then they are more reasonable but reason is not persuasive except to people who are already in agreement on matters of faith which are found to be at the heart of any long or short chain of reasons.

Reason can clarify your position relative to someone else. It can make you yourself understand your own position too. It can not however change your position, only uncover what you already felt all along.

Am I not right /pol/? A machine following logic makes no errors but it also has no reason to act, it just awaits input, or follows its programming given to it by an emotional being. The only motive for action is emotion. Whether it be the emotion of the user of that machine, its programmer or creator, whatever; emotion is the cause of all conscious decisions to act and reason only informs actions. Emotion is there at the core of it all.

There is no reason for action but emotion. Emotion is the cause of all conscious activity, it is what sets us in motion, it is what tells us that we should do something or not. The only way to change others who do not already agree with us is through appeal to emotions.

The only time reason can ever have any bearing is something like "person x wants to do this, so I shall reason with him to find a way for it to be done". We could have a person that wants to stab himself with a knife and we could reason that kitchens are places where knives are commonly kept and so he should check in his kitchen for a knife to stab himself with and he should have a working pair of arms with which to grasp the knife and stab himself. We could have a person that wants to remove non-whites from his nation and we could then reason all sorts of ways to remove them and argue the merits of the different methods. Whatever can you do however to say to a person that truly wants to stab himself not to do it? Nothing which falls under the category of reason. Likewise, a person that doesn't want to stab himself with a knife, whatever can you say to convince them to do it? There's nothing reasonable about not stabbing yourself with a knife. The is something unreasonable though with a person who thinks they can stab themselves with a knife by using a fork; if there aim was to stab themselves with a knife then they have failed.

I think reason is non-persuasive to anyone who has different motivations from you. We are all emotionally conditioned. Everything we do or don't do is emotional at its core. If I want to live, you can't reason with me that I should die. If I want to die, you can't reason with me that I should live. Maybe you could discover a greater desire that conflicts with the others and point it out as a reason towards an alternative course of action but that's it.

Politics is a big ruse and there is no right or wrong answers to any course of action society might take on any issue where not all are in agreement as to the aims of a policy. If everyone say wants a homogenous society, then all can argue over how to achieve that, and multiple positions could develop out of that discussion as to which course of action is to be pursued. In this reason could reign supreme.

When however you have a lot of people wanting fundamentally different things there can be no agreement and reason can have no relevance. If everyone haa a different vision as to what society should be like then only a concept like The Will To Power or Might Makes Right can settle the matter. Elements of society that hold completely contrary values must be separated from that society or destroyed as nothing else will do to resolve the matter.

Not going to bother replying to every post, but you're relatively close to the target. Still missing it, though. You are discussing humans' ability to engage in reasoning and the relation between one person's reasoning and another's. You have yet to address the concept of reason itself. If anything, reason has absolutely no limits because it allows people to come to different conclusions given the same evidence. Whether or not humans listen to other people's reasoning is entirely irrelevant, because reason itself has already served its purpose. You have used reason to evaluate the information you find and take your stance. Reason does not convince other people. Rhetoric convinces other people. Does rhetoric have its limits? Most definitely. Your discussions with other people about different topics is pure rhetoric where you discuss the views your reason has given you.

Bottom line: Rhetoric is not reason. Reason is the ability of an individual to come to a conclusion, rhetoric is the ability to propogate what your reason has given you.

Thank you for doing your best to inform us all about the evils of homosexuality. We appreciate it. If you would like to discuss reason some more, please keep the off-topic posting elsewhere.

>>9691
Ok well my whole point was "Reason does not convince other people." and that's the "limitation" I identified concerning reason; that it can't be used to convince others.

Taking into consideration your special distinction between rhetoric and reason then do you suggest that reason has any limitations and what are those limitations?

>please keep the off-topic posting elsewhere.

Who gives a shit if we go off-topic within a thread? Apparently you; but I don't. Making off-topic threads is not good but making off-topic posts in a thread is a trivial matter.

>>9693
The only potential limit that reason has is availability of information. It seems like a bit of an obvious statement, but as every piece of information has (or at least ought to) have some sort of influence on the final conclusion reached, every thinking being is limited in their ability to reason by what body of information they have access to. The pool of knowledge shared by humankind is quite large, but there is plenty of undiscovered information, details left out, and so on and so forth. Reason is limited by the quality and quantity of information given to it. To use a popular computer science term, "Garbage in, garbage out." It is a problem that can be remedied easily up to the point where the entirety of existing information is fed in, at which point the search for new information begins if one wishes to further refine their reasoning process.

>>9695

Reason can affect conclusions, but not necessarily sentiments.

Going back to my point about homosexuals. You can reason that your distaste for seeing gay men have sex is normal, and maybe even some type of inbuilt mechanism to keep men focused on procreation with women, but your conclusions from that sentiment are open to reason.

>>9694
Lesbians are disgusting and abhorrent and a great waste if the women were attractive.

Sex should happen for procreation and involve penis going into vagina, not all these other wrong places. Sodomy is revolting.

>>9697
I'm only interested in reasoning that homosexuality is the sexual attraction to the same gender, that I find it disgusting, and that I want all homosexuals purged from my society.

Why it is that I have this sentiment I don't know (perhaps it's an instinct, perhaps it's upbringing, perhaps it's an emotional trauma, etc. I don't care) but as long as I am in possession of this mind this is what I'm sticking to, even if back of it there is an awareness that I am not these ideas, but a spirit which possesses a mind like a vehicle; which in turn possesses a body.

One alternative might be an oblivion which so erases sentiment that I can neither be said to be for or against it but to be beyond it entirely.

Whatever – man must fight for his ideals and impose them on others or else fail to propagate his mentality to others.

>>9704
Do you care for the reason why you like faggots and think you must expose the reason yourself?

Hatred is not a negative emotion to me. It's a preference and it's motivated by love; if you do not consider heterosexuality sacred and wish to defend that behavioral pattern's manifestation in the universe then you don't really feel very much preference do you? …or your love is placed in the opposite perhaps.

>>9702
>Neoplatonism and their concept of The Good

We need a thread on this perhaps. Someone ought to post what this is…

You're literally obsessed with homosexuals.

Reason as our feeble minds can understand it is an illusion or perception of a Truth that exists in the minds of individuals.

This is not to say that there is a platonic ideal capital-R Reason that exists in higher realms, but everyone else has their own special brand of "reason" filtered and distorted by their personal perspectives and this explains the inability of people to see eye to eye or comprehend different perspectives.

For example, one person's criteria for homosexuality being degenerate may be different from another's. You say it's bad because disease, broken homes and so on. This is fine and makes sense objectively, and speaks for the welfare of people as to why it should not be endorsed.

I say it's bad because it promotes a culture of worship of sex and keeps one enslaved to chasing fruitless pursuits coupled with the fact that "homosexual" is a false identity. Why should someone identify with the place they rub their meatflaps or meatpole against? Sex is for reproduction of quality traits and non-orgasmic sex for recreation if you do it right.

Sexuality is such a useless categorical to further perpetuate the illusion of egoic division used to control and keep everyone stuck in it locked into one big karmic loosh funnel. It's hard to see it as anything other than that.

Though I do not make it my job, in the rare occasion that it happens I challenge people with this line of reason they are forced to question the nature of being homo or any other such false identity.

Sometimes the ego is too safe in it's hermit crab shell of false identities and will evade emotions that make it feel attacked. Plus there are some soulless creatures who are all ego, you can't do anything about those through mundane means of rhetoric. For everyone else you must use rhetoric tactfully to transmit reason if this is what you want to do. Think of how water passively flows through and around obstacles. Put your ego aside to infiltrate theirs and think of why they feel a certain way about a thing, the personal experience of the individual. When you can see their soul, they are ready for this information, your rhetoric will be received and the potential for truth and reason to be transmitted is increased. That's all it is.

>>12557
I should add that false identities create unnecessary pain and subsequent suffering. Perpetuators of false identities only want your loosh

>>9717
…and race, pedophiles, killing, magick, and many other things.

>>12552
Kurt Gödel sure was a looney.

Bumping.

reason does not have it's limitation. you are probably using a bad definition, but logic is boundless

>It is not so. Two people may agree upon all the facts and reach the same conclusions yet be motivated towards different actions.
of course, but what does that have to do with reason?

you know you just need to understand objectivity and subjectivity

depending on the perspective, all actions can be reasonable and rational. they can SEEM logical, but with more information a more logical way of acting is always possible

as long as at least one individual has an understanding of logical fallacies and can point them out, so in this case endless arguement is not pointless for logical understanding will be increased for someone (unless they are proven to be an arrogant ignoramus, then one can just stop wasting their energy, but if energy is just diminshed one can agree to disagree due to difference in perspective or moral understanding and leave the conversation much more enlightened)

polarity always exists only due to perspective, and there is alwayts another perspective where the dichtomy becomes false