[lirulin]

^^Cool. I have the art of war - got it in French to practice - but it's been awhile since I looked at it. I've always been a secondary source junkie so that one might be nice - too bad those other books are hard to find. Confucious I can do. The big names are certainly a logical place to start. Thanks.

[Quinault NDN]

its mainly just scribblings here and there

Reflections from the cave walls if you ask me ;)

[calliope]

First of all, I think we should substitute the word "fun" for "war" from now on. This is a very interesting topic that we haven't fully developed yet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bt: "Feelers tend to put more thought into ethics than thinkers in an attempt to create comprehensive ethical systems by which to govern their perceptions of the world. Since they give such perceptions more importance, they also tend to judge by such systems to a greater degree, and are more convinced themselves, that their subjective ethical judgments are objectively valid. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above statement I will take Bt's word is accurate. I use ethics in everything I do, obsessively so. And I can tell the difference between my values (completely subjective) and correct and incorrect. Values cannot be correct and incorrect, therefore I do not try to impose my ethics on others as I do what is correct or incorrect. Therefore one of the reasons I don't venture forth to other subforums is that people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between right/wrong and correct/incorrect. It would be fun to find out if this is really true of most non-INTJs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bt:
"In any ethical debate, it is important to understand the foundations of ethics. I think it's worth note that both "controlling" and "rude" are ethical judgments and that marks the entry into an expansive gray area... making any kind of ethical judgment... or balancing "goodness" and "badness" against one is profoundly hard, and an extremely subjective realm. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't use straight philosophy to discuss things on a sociology forum. We are trying to figure things out here, and any tool is fair game. But let's not use a tool for the fun of using a tool. Let's be efficient. OF COURSE "rude" and "controlling" are subjective. But almost everyone here shares the same general definition of "rude" and "controlling", so using them is perfectly appropriate. It is valid to try to see if people consider trying to get others to adopt their values rude or controlling. And I don't mean just saying your opinion. I mean using forceful or manipulative methods to try to get other people to adopt your belief systems.

I am driven crazy by people who think that everyone has so many different ethics that we can't easily compare and discuss them. This is absolute hogwash. Pretty much everyone here on this forum shares the same definition of rude and controlling. We can argue the fine points, and that's what's fun. That's what stretches one's mind and why we are here. And turning the conversation into an obviously massively grey area ruins the fun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bt: "One is extremely hard pressed to explain why something is bad, and another good. And even if they manage to deconstruction such a meaning of one ethical judgment, so many countless numbers of ethical judgments are in play in every single human interaction that establishing the goodness or badness of such an event is near impossible (See: Butterfly effect) "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will change this to "most" are extremely hard pressed to explain why something is bad and good. Because I have no problems doing this. I do it with everything. I like to talk about news, politics, sociology, psychology, science, anything specifically in order to sort what my personal values are about... everything. I have no problem respecting others values while still believing my own or giving up mine when someone else's seem more right for me. I find it fun and easy. If there's no one around, I do it myself.

One of the reasons I don't go to other subforums is because it's way too hard for others to do this. So they don't even know what is their opinion, what is their value, what is right/wrong from what is correct/incorrect. And they try to push their values on others.

Meaning they get mad when you step on their values. And they make it personal by getting emotional. And using coercion to get others to adopt to your values either overtly or covertly is manipulative. Wishing others felt the same as you is just great. And most others don't know the difference between wishing something were true and trying to force others.

So the fun part would be to identify and see if it is true that people outside this subforum have a hard time understanding the difference between right/wrong and correct/incorrect. And then it would be fun to see what they think ethically about imposing one's values on another person. We won't spoil the fun by taking the outlier exceptions because, of course, we are generalizing in order to understand the norm.


.............................................

[Btmangan]

We won't spoil the fun by taking the outlier exceptions because, of course, we are generalizing in order to understand the norm.

Then this will be our only disagreement.

While I agree that most of the time forcing coercion from one ethical code to another is an inherent wrong... I believe that attempts at such can vary in their wrong-ness in that at times, such attempts can be perfectly ethical.

[calliope]

Then this will be our only disagreement.

While I agree that most of the time forcing coercion from one ethical code to another is an inherent wrong... I believe that attempts at such can vary in their wrong-ness in that at times, such attempts can be perfectly ethical.

An example, please,of coercion being ethical (between grownups and no one is in physical or emotional danger, i.e. a common scenario). These are exactly the fine points I would like to discuss. This is fun disagreement.

[lirulin]

^^ you're practicing using smilies, aren't you?

[calliope]

^^ you're practicing using smilies, aren't you?

It's my new form of sarcasm.

[Btmangan]

An example, please,of coercion being ethical (between grownups and no one is in physical or emotional danger, i.e. a common scenario). These are exactly the fine points I would like to discuss. This is fun disagreement.

I speak only for myself.

To oversimplify... I believe that autonomy is an essential right of all individuals that can only be disregarded if someone is harming another individual. If someone harms themselves, I believe autonomy still holds true, so I believe that people should be able to ride without a seatbelt, helmet, or have the right to commit suicide (although this is a complex issue regarding when someone is of "sound mind" to make such a decision)

In my personal opinion, levels of harm that can bypass the rudeness of someone insisting on a change in ethics... ideally should be to prevent harm to others... and there are many kinds of harm other than simply physical.

I believe a certain degree of "sugar-coating" is acceptable in pursuit of this endeavor Though, sugar coating should only be to soothe the emotional negative reactions, I believe that sugar coating becomes unethical when it turns to factual/logical-based lies.

[calliope]

I speak only for myself.

To oversimplify... I believe that autonomy is an essential right of all individuals that can only be disregarded if someone is harming another individual. If someone harms themselves, I believe autonomy still holds true, so I believe that people should be able to ride without a seatbelt, helmet, or have the right to commit suicide (although this is a complex issue regarding when someone is of "sound mind" to make such a decision)

In my personal opinion, levels of harm that can bypass the rudeness of someone insisting on a change in ethics... ideally should be to prevent harm to others... and there are many kinds of harm other than simply physical.

I believe a certain degree of "sugar-coating" is acceptable in pursuit of this endeavor Though, sugar coating should only be to soothe the emotional negative reactions, I believe that sugar coating becomes unethical when it turns to factual/logical-based lies.

I wanted examples besides emotional or physical danger and not adult-child, so not including harm done to others. (And let's not get into someone sensitive can be harmed so greatly by carelessness as if it were a sword in the heart). Normal situations where it's perfectly ethical to try to make somone change their values. And not something that is against the law. I'm talking about in a casual social situation, which is what INTJs come up against all the time, where someone tries to make us change our values.

[birdflyaway]

@calliope
Do you mean something like trying to get someone to buy free-range eggs instead of caged-hen ones?
Or picking up an object that appears to have no owner and is just lying on the street and saying "finders keepers"? or....