Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 101

Thread: Peter Singer

  1. #1
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Peter Singer






  2. #2
    Elro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    2,796
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I still need to read his book. Supposedly Animal Liberation was very influential for animal rights, although I can't vouch for its contents yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Holy mud-wrestling bipolar donkeys, Batman!

    Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.


    I pity your souls

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting. I had never actually seen or heard Peter Singer before I saw this video (thanks for providing it, Ezra). And I didn't imagine that his type would be so obvious. He is clearly an ILI, which means that we can use Peter Singer as a clear example of a famous ILI.

    Can we all agree (especially hitta) that Singer really is an ILI?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this is a perfect oppurtunity to discuss the differences between some types (especially LIIs, ILIs, and perhaps IEIs) that people here always tend to disagree on. Everyone with a serious interest in understanding the types correctly would not want to miss this chance.

    I think that Peter Singer is probably one of the most obvious examples of an ILI there is. At least I can't think of a better ILI prototype at the moment. So, why do people keep silent? Please raise your honest opinions, and don't just disagree but try to pinpoint what you have trouble with if you don't think that Singer is an INTp.

    What do Rick think about Singer's type? And what does hitta think? Everyone would probably like to know that, and in any case it is of great importance to this forum to know it.

    I claim that Peter Singer, with near 100 % certainty, is an INTp/ILI. Can we agree on this (as many people as possible) and then move on?

    I really want to reach a consensus on at least one famous person's type -- and this seems to be the perfect opportunity to do it. Let's act now.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Take a look at one of the videos for just half a minute or so, and see for yourself that Peter Singer is a perfect example of an INTp/ILI. It's so obvious that you don't have to analyze what he says or read anything about his person. By only watching and hearing him in action you immediately just know that he is an ILI.

  6. #6
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Phaedrus, you're talking to yourself.

    Ask niffweed.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Phaedrus, you're talking to yourself.
    It seems so. But that is irrelevant, because people should take a look anyway -- if they are interested in getting a correct understanding of the types.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Ask niffweed.
    Why? He has me on ignore if I am correctly informed.

    And what is your opinion on Singer's type, Ezra?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    The utilitarian guy? I haven't watched these videos, but my impression from reading excerpts of his "Practical Ethics" was indeed INTp.
    Good. But can't you watch just a few seconds of one of them to see if you agree with me that Singer is an astonishingly clear example of an INTp? I think that everyone (including Rick) should consider using Peter Singer as an illustration of the typical ILI temperament, attitudes, behaviours, and ways of reasoning.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    But Singer's work in philosophy I think would be a bit unusual for an INTp-Te.
    Why?

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ifmd95 View Post
    An ESFp-Fi has very weak thinking functions and the strength of Se is rapidly decreasing. If an INTp-Te immerses itself in philosophy and abstraction, then who in that dual pair is aquiring practical information and profitting off of it? It doesn't seem very likely if we are to maintain gamma quadra values. Moreover, those quadra values are approaching delta in this subtype, so Te increasingly becomes more hands-on. That said, I'd expect an INTp-Te to be more interested in something like engineering and applied sciences.
    Disregarding whether that is true or not, you don't think that ethics can be seen as a kind of "applied science"? Peter Singer's ethical theory has direct practical consequences, and in Sweden we make a distinction between "theoretical philosophy" (logic, epistemology, philosophy of scieince, semantics, metaphysics, etc.) and "practical philosophy" (ethics, meta-ethics, political philosophy, esthetics, etc.). They are usually separate university institutions.

  11. #11
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think this video with his interview with Charlie Rose is useful:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=MUt4naUYz0I


    Also because I'm increasingly inclined to see Charlie Rose as LIE.

    In both interviews, I see confidence in addressing questions that are or based, but overall I think he's more concerned with than . His case-by-case approach to ethical decisions suggests, also, more than ; he seems pretty confident with .

    he seems very little concerned with. In the Charlie Rose interview, he specifically addresses concerns but then overrules them as of little importance.

    or is not clear; I very much doubt he's a ego type though.

    From the Charlie Rose interview, I think is more visible than .

    So, overall, I think that ILI fits him well.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From the first two minutes of the video it was obvious he was INTp. I just didn't want to agree with Phaedrus.

  13. #13
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Why?
    Because niffweed is an ILI, and he could give his opinion on if he thought Singer was his identical.

    And what is your opinion on Singer's type, Ezra?
    As always, I learn more and more. I had this ridiculous idea (you could call it a stereotype) that the ILI didn't smile or laugh, but Singer does on at least one occasion in both interviews.

    Obviously the subject matter is particularly Fi-related (ethics), and he seems greatly concerned with it. And the way in which he approaches his topic of choice/line of work would suggest Te. As Rose says, it's been claimed that he's more political than one might assume, which suggests a practicality and real world concern more applicable to Te over Ti. However, Singer himself believes he isn't that political.

    But, at the risk of sounding like the devil's advocate, why not ESI? Could his moral concern for animal rights take precendence over his Te methods? Couldn't his impact be Se related?

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    xNTP as an uninformed guess.
    Well, decide one or the other; these types are quite different. Okay, so they're both adept in the same functions, but they value the complete opposite functions to one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by Expat View Post
    [...]he seems pretty confident with .
    I don't understand this. If he's an ILI, how can he be confident with Fi? I thought that logical types weren't confident in Fi or Fe, which is why they sought it in a dual or activation partner.

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    From the first two minutes of the video it was obvious he was INTp. I just didn't want to agree with Phaedrus.
    LIS. Phaedrus isn't always wrong. He's simply controversial when it comes to issues concerning correlations between socionics and another system.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    But, at the risk of sounding like the devil's advocate, why not ESI?
    1. He does not look like an ESI on V.I.
    2. His way of arguing is clearly NT.
    3. His temperament seems to be IP > IJ.
    4. No ESI would reason like he does, or coming to the same conclusions, or even base his or her world outlook on the same principles. It is very obvious that he is not an ESI -- that is something you can see immediately without analyzing anything.

  15. #15
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    As always, I learn more and more. I had this ridiculous idea (you could call it a stereotype) that the ILI didn't smile or laugh, but Singer does on at least one occasion in both interviews.
    Well, like Gordon Brown, he does smile or laugh when emotionally inclined to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    I don't understand this. If he's an ILI, how can he be confident with Fi? I thought that logical types weren't confident in Fi or Fe, which is why they sought it in a dual or activation partner.
    Okay forget the word "confident" then. He prefers to use Fi rather than Ti, that's what I meant. However, being the ILI's hidden agenda, I think he does want to be strong in Fi and that comes across imo.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  16. #16
    Expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,853
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    LIS. Phaedrus isn't always wrong. He's simply controversial when it comes to issues concerning correlations between socionics and another system.
    Well, you know -- even a broken clock will be right twice a day.
    , LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
    Quote Originally Posted by implied
    gah you're like the shittiest ENTj ever!

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    my bet is on static NT and ENTP.
    Argue for it. How much are you willing to bet on ENTp? If you have me covered I will go all-in on INTp.

  18. #18
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Argue for it. How much are you willing to bet on ENTp? If you have me covered I will go all-in on INTp.
    You take the non-serious things so seriously.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    i think he is ENTp because he is using static reasoning Ji function, as well as Ne and looking from different point of views.
    What do you mean by static reasoning? An example would be great. Every serious philosopher always mentions different possible points of view when discussing philosophical problems. And INTps are usually very aware of the existence of different possible views, and they are also testing them before coming to a conclusion. So your argument seems rather weak.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    he becomes jumpy when he is confronted with Fi usage. he quite typically does self removal from polr usage by going onto 8th, then onto 2nd, then on to first.
    How can you possibly know that? How can you know that your rather sophisticated interpretation is the correct explanation of what you can observe?

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    just watch the video, it's full of the examples.
    Maybe. But where exactly? You still haven't explained what you mean by static reasoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    INTps don't go over points of view (Ji and their multitude is Ne) or discuss philosophical problems. they talk about facts of the world, how things work or whether they will or not, etc.
    Such an utterly stupid comment is really not worth a comment, but since it is totally false I guess I have to anyway. I am an INTp and I love to discuss philosophical problems; it is one of my favourite occupations, and I have done it since childhood. I also know several professional philosophers that are INTps. And if you would bother some day to read an ILI type description, you would find that inclination described there too.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    well, actually i must agree with you on the latter, i mean they DO engage in philosophical discussions, but it's done within Te and Ni, i.e. about facts and agreeing upon these, as well as touching upon the Ni aspects, of which i have little understanding.
    Then stop suggesting that philosophy is only and , and that philosophers, like for example Bertrand Russell and Karl Popper, are not "real" philosophers.

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    i do not wish to continue this debate though as your intolerance is too off-putting.
    Intolerance of what?

    as for static reasoning, it is very hard for me to describe it, but perhaps i'll try. it's like you have reasoning based on commonly accepted facts and you sort of agree with the other person on the correctness of what is being said, there is no points of view, there is only one and it is factual world-view or something. now static reasoning often assumes things in the mental domain to continue deriving new statements, whereas dynamic reasoning though also perhaps assumes things, but does it using stuff like probability f.e., and not f.e. possibility as in static reasoning.
    If that is what you mean by "static reasoning", you obviously can't use it to determine the type of Peter Singer.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    i don't see why.
    Because an INTp could do that just as much as an ENTp might. You can't reliably type people using such typing "methods".

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee View Post
    you are right. i think in relation to how do you tell where the function that have just being used is in the psyche is, is still an area deserving much attention and documentation.
    Of course it would be nice to have access to such an accurate typing method, but we haven't. You are just speculating here. You don't know where in Singer's psyche the used function is.

  24. #24
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,621
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default Peter Singer

    the conversation in the Walmart thread reminded me of this guy. i'm very fascinated and often ambivalent about what he has to say.
    i wanna say LII but that's just a quick & dirty impression.









    “Extreme poverty is not only a condition of unsatisfied material needs. It is often accompanied by a degrading state of powerlessness. ”

    “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”

    “Arguments for preservation based on the beauty of wilderness are sometimes treated as if they were of little weight because they are "merely aesthetic". That is a mistake. We go to great lengths to preserve the artistic treasures of earlier human civilisations. It is difficult to imagine any economic gain that we would be prepared to accept as adequate compensation for, for instance, the destruction of the paintings in the Louvre. How should we compare the aesthetic value of wilderness with that of the paintings in the Louvre? Here, perhaps, judgment does become inescapably subjective; so I shall report my own experiences. I have looked at the paintings in the Louvre, and in many of the other great galleries of Europe and the United States. I think I have a reasonable sense of appreciation of the fine arts; yet I have not had, in any museum, experiences that have filled my aesthetic senses in the way that they are filled when I walk in a natural setting and pause to survey the view from a rocky peak overlooking a forested valley, or by a stream tumbling over moss-covered boulders set amongst tall tree-ferns, growing in the shade of the forest canopy, I do not think I am alone in this; for many people, wilderness is the source of the greatest feelings of aesthetic appreciation, rising to an almost mystical intensity.”

    “The prescription of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat human beings.”

    “In an earlier stage of our development most human groups held to a tribal ethic. Members of the tribe were protected, but people of other tribes could be robbed or killed as one pleased. Gradually the circle of protection expanded, but as recently as 150 years ago we did not include blacks. So African human beings could be captured, shipped to America, and sold. In Australia white settlers regarded Aborigines as a pest and hunted them down, much as kangaroos are hunted down today. Just as we have progressed beyond the blatantly racist ethic of the era of slavery and colonialism, so we must now progress beyond the speciesist ethic of the era of factory farming, of the use of animals as mere research tools, of whaling, seal hunting, kangaroo slaughter, and the destruction of wilderness. We must take the final step in expanding the circle of ethics.”

    “Were we incapable of empathy – of putting ourselves in the position of others and seeing that their suffering is like our own – then ethical reasoning would lead nowhere. If emotion without reason is blind, then reason without emotion is impotent.”

    “Philosophy ought to question the basic assumptions of the age. Thinking through, critically and carefully, what most of us take for granted is, I believe, the chief task of philosophy, and the task that makes philosophy a worthwhile activity.”

    “To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.”

    “The assumption that in order to be interested in such matters one must be an "animal-lover" is itself an indication of the absence of the slightest inkling that the moral standards that we apply among human beings might extend to other animals. No one, except a racist concerned to smear his opponents as "******-lovers," would suggest that in order to be concerned about equality for mistreated racial minorities you have to love those minorities, or regard them as cute and cuddly...The portrayal of those who protest against cruelty to animals as sentimental, emotional "animal-lovers" has had the effect of excluding the entire issue of our treatment of nonhumans from serious political and moral discussion. ”

    “I do think that it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant. For me, the relevant question is, what makes it so seriously wrong to take a life? Those of you who are not vegetarians are responsible for taking a life every time you eat. Species is no more relevant than race in making these judgments.”

  25. #25
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,621
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    found an old thread where ILI was the popular opinion. ehhhhh.
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...7-Peter-Singer

    the things that jumped out to me when going through quotes were a tendency to trace things through time and make comparisons (race vs. species etc). playing socionics paint by numbers that would be Ni and Ne so he'd be intuitive.

  26. #26
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's safe to assume at this point that you haven't typed an LII before. I'm dead serious. I have no idea how someone who puts morality above logic can be considered logical, let alone Ti base. In fact, I think most of the logicals you type are feelers. This becomes obvious to me with every thread you post. I have no doubt about that. Unfortunately, I have no interest in him nor his writings, so there is no way for me to type this person beyond a simple impression.

  27. #27
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,621
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti can deal with morality. just in a different way than Fi. and i don't think i've met a single person in my entire life who didn't hold any values that weren't in some way illogical. are you feeling hostile? your tone is odd. if you want to point out who else you think i've typed wrong we can talk about it. for the record, EII did also cross my mind for singer.

  28. #28
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 02:18 AM.

  29. #29
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    Ti can deal with morality. just in a different way than Fi. and i don't think i've met a single person in my entire life who didn't hold any values that weren't in some way illogical. are you feeling hostile? your tone is odd. if you want to point out who else you think i've typed wrong we can talk about it. for the record, EII did also cross my mind for singer.
    I disagree on all accounts.

    (and no hostility. dats how I argue, don't get offended so soon)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    LII.

    I doubt the entire domain of moral philosophy is somehow exclusive to logical types.

    Pay attention to what he's basing his arguments on and how they're constructed. Ask yourself whether this basis comprises logical judgments or value judgments.
    Bold: Odd statement. You probably meant something else. In any case, that wouldn't be my argument.

    Enlighten me. You obviously have an idea of what exactly he is basing it on. I don't.

  30. #30
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 02:18 AM.

  31. #31
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Typo; was corrected in edit some mins ago.

    Try reading. Thinking helps too.
    Figured as much.

    Okay..

    Why make an argument if you aren't ready for a follow up? It seems similar to lungs' argument anyway, you agree? You assign a certain kind of moral judgement to LIIs. This is fairly obvious. I think that's part of the problem. I've no interest in taking it any further if that's the case.

    I think it's hilarious that lungs says that Ti can "deal" with morality. That is just pure bullshit.

    Why not type him without judging his morals, whether he is basing it on Ti or not is not what I'm interested in arguing for at this moment, make an argument for something else that LIIs are known for. Like, one of their strong functions, lets say, any of the ego or id functions would do. I'd like to hear such an argument from both of you that doesn't end up being reliant on a weak function one way or another.

    Is it easy? That's probably not a good question, but it something to think about. What you are doing is nothing but a lazy attempt at typing.

  32. #32
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,621
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    maybe relevant to what Ryan has said, my reaction to a lot of what singer says is, "I guess that makes sense but it just feels wrong." I think he puts forth arguments that have their own kind of logic that's difficult for me to refute. also I don't put a lot of stock in this since intertypes rarely play out so obviously for me, but my feeling towards him of an odd mix of intrigue, admiration, and repulsion seem pretty textbook super ego.

  33. #33
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lungs View Post
    maybe relevant to what Ryan has said, my reaction to a lot of what singer says is, "I guess that makes sense but it just feels wrong." I think he puts forth arguments that have their own kind of logic that's difficult for me to refute. also I don't put a lot of stock in this since intertypes rarely play out so obviously for me, but my feeling towards him of an odd mix of intrigue, admiration, and repulsion seem pretty textbook super ego.
    1. what you think is wrong is not what everyone else think is wrong
    2. therefore he could very well be an ethical, and your identical
    3. you just sound like a traditionalist "I guess this is a fair argument, but it contradicts what I already hold dear to me so it's obviously wrong"
    4. lazy thinking at its finest, "he is smart, but he has a weird sense of morality that I cannot accept", therefore not my identical

  34. #34
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,621
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i don't think you understood me. first of all, i know #1 is true and i take it for granted. the rest just doesn't even make sense to me.

    i'm not going to make an effort to go forward with this conversation and try to communicate on your terms because you're being a scrappy little shithead. learn some fucking manners and maybe next time i'll be more amenable. its a shame, because this could have been interesting.

  35. #35
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    764
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    tbh, I'm not interested in arguing with you, I'm glad you are being constructive by sitting out of this conversation

    sure I'm tactless but I'm not going out of my way to annoy you

  36. #36
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I remember watching one of his videos when I was very new to Socionics and I thought him and Daniel Dennett were possibly EII, but then I wavered to LII for Dennett, but I don't know either very well, etc.

  37. #37
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Pay attention to what he's basing his arguments on and how they're constructed. Ask yourself whether this basis comprises judgments that are more logical or valuational in nature.
    Honestly, I'd say they're valuational. You cannot logically compare race and species and say that they are equal comparisons. The argument against racism is that each man, each human being is a human being, and so should be treated as one. They have in common their humanity. Humans and animals do not have humanity in common, they are entirely different beings, and to suggest that they are the same (but like different races of humans) is to completely ignore reality. He wants them to be seen as the same, with the same rights, but that doesn't make it so. It's a huge stretch with no logical basis. It's like the common saying "comparing apples and oranges" - the reason that's a saying at all is because it illustrates how lumping things that are very different together and trying to compare them does not work.

  38. #38
    ■■■■■■ Radio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2,574
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As far as VI goes I'd lean LII > EII.

  39. #39
    Restricted user
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,078
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    .
    Last edited by mfckr; 12-29-2014 at 02:18 AM.

  40. #40
    lump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,621
    Mentioned
    633 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    Honestly, I'd say they're valuational. You cannot logically compare race and species and say that they are equal comparisons. The argument against racism is that each man, each human being is a human being, and so should be treated as one. They have in common their humanity. Humans and animals do not have humanity in common, they are entirely different beings, and to suggest that they are the same (but like different races of humans) is to completely ignore reality. He wants them to be seen as the same, with the same rights, but that doesn't make it so. It's a huge stretch with no logical basis. It's like the common saying "comparing apples and oranges" - the reason that's a saying at all is because it illustrates how lumping things that are very different together and trying to compare them does not work.
    i agree with you but my agreement from my perspective feels ethically based. i wouldn't compare animals and humans because it wouldn't feel right. but i wouldn't feel comfortable saying that this is logically so, or that to say so "ignores reality" because to me it just feels like a valuational assessment. whereas with both you and peter singer, on different sides of the spectrum, present your arguments in a way that is more just "and that's that," more explicit, which is what i'm attributing to Ti.

    EII would be my second guess though and it would be interesting to see more intelligent arguments that might point me in that direction.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •