Upload
Login or register

krobeles

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:8/08/2012
Last Login:9/27/2016
Location:Denmark
Stats
Comment Ranking:#2759
Highest Content Rank:#2711
Highest Comment Rank:#1051
Content Thumbs: 1633 total,  1919 ,  286
Comment Thumbs: 11072 total,  19784 ,  8712
Content Level Progress: 30% (30/100)
Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 117 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 25% (25/100)
Level 288 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor → Level 289 Comments: More Thumbs Than A Hiroshima Survivor
Subscribers:0
Content Views:101856
Times Content Favorited:73 times
Total Comments Made:6191
FJ Points:10336
Favorite Tags: fucking (2) | shit (2)

latest user's comments

#45 - You're correct. Feelings are not rational and for this very re…  [+] (20 replies) 09/16/2016 on HE A GOOD BOY +9
User avatar
#46 - selongb (09/16/2016) [-]
How dark your existence dear krobeles, that you count love as a compromised mental state. Love, such an integral facet of the human experience.

But I digress, Since we agree that feelings are not rational, I will reconstruct my point from there to try and convay my thoughts on the matter properly to you.

I also agree that feelings should not be acted upon, when in pursuit of solution. So it should stand that before you attempt to find solutions to a problem, you should first dispel emotion clouding your judgement?

If this is so, and I am sure that it is, then we need to know, how best we dispel emotion? I have posited that, open expression of emotion is the best and quickest way to deal with ones emotional state.

Then, and only after emotions have been handled is one able to calmly and clearly analyze the situation at hand.

As for my age, I am 21, in my senior year of University, studying Biotechnology. I also am rereading "The Last Days of Socrates" for a class, so forgive my verbosity and structure, it rubs off on you really fucking quick.

And please, feel free to reciprocate my gesture and enlighten me to your age.
User avatar
#48 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
Its not that my existence is dark, I just face reality. Its not that love isn't nice, but theres simply no getting around it. When in love, you do not think like a rational human being with regards to your object of affection. It is thusly, a compromised mental state. That doesn't invalidate it, its just description of it. The rainbow or the northern lights are no less pretty, just because I understand what causes them and how they work.

You really believe that that emotional outburst wont engender an emotional response from other people? Then those people respond emotionally just as you did, and you in turn suffer an emotional response to their reaction to your initial outburst. Its just like a run-away nuclear reaction. Thats where we get angry mobs from, as we've seen in these cases before. In theory, your approach might work, but in practice it certainly does not. We have empirical evidence of this.

I'm 23 in the first year of my masters. Recently finished my bachelors thesis in physics with a (technically) joint specialty in Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics.
User avatar
#50 - selongb (09/16/2016) [-]
>Then those people respond emotionally just as you did, and you in turn suffer an emotional response to their reaction to your initial outburst. Its just like a run-away nuclear reaction.

But do you realize what you just described? It is conversation, all be it an extremely messy one. I will readily confess that my method for emotional dispersion is far from perfect, however, I would suggest that it is a far better method than the stoicism that you seem to be espousing.

I bring you back to the damn, it is bound to burst at some point, and when it does, can you not say that there will be a reaction from the opposing side that will match it in some way? If it must be so for my system then so should it be for yours. Then what is better, to bear the brunt of light flooding now and then, or to store all emotional tension up, ever under the threat of a tsunami?
User avatar
#51 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
I dont agree that it necessarily has to burst. You dont need a vocal outlet to work through your problems. You can relegate that to an internal process.
If you make it the norm, that any degree of emotional outbursting is acceptable under these circumstances, you're going to incentivised people to deploy a higher degree of Pathos in their arguments, because you've normalized emotion as a reasonable approach to problems. This in turn, will lead to demagoguery and preachers being even more influential than they already are and ultimately, logic and reason will be drowned out in a sea of emotion and Pathos.
You see, emotion comes more naturally to humans than logic and reason, which ensures that logic and reason can never be a totalitarian system. Try as we might, we can never be 100% logical. Logic and reason is something that must be cultivated through years of hard work and effort. Emotion on the other hand, is something we're all keenly in touch with from the moment we're born. We can never rid ourselves entirely of emotion, but we can indeed rid ourselves entirely of logic.
That is why my system will never become totalitarian, but your system almost inevitably will. It is just a matter of time.

This is why I propose a system of stoicism. I agree, that if stoicism is practiced incorrectly, then yes, it might lead to a "tsunami" as you say. However, I think we should incentivise people to constantly better themselves and rise above their base urges. To learn to practice and understand logic, reason and stoicism, to the point where this "tsunami" wont occur due to peoples incorrect practice of stoicism.
In essence, I think my approach is more liberal and respectful of peoples agency than yours. I think your approach - unintentionally, I do think - assumes that people are unable to master themselves and practice their own intellectual agency.
User avatar
#93 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Holy fuck, this is some /r/iamverysmart shit.

Emotions rule every facet of our existence. Being an "adult" isn't this intellectual battle of stoicism and logic like children believe, it's growing into those emotions and embracing your humanity. You couldn't be more wrong than:

> This is how functional adults deal with their problems. Not by screaming, not by throwing a tantrum, not by crying. They deal with their problems by calmly analyzing the situation and coming to the best possible solution of whatever problem they face.

Sure, when it's about minor shit like the barista not getting your coffee right, that's true. But that's not because you toss emotions out the window for rationality, it's because you're better in-sync with them; as a kid, it's hard to tell the difference between "slightly annoyed" and "fuck the world". But as an adult, you realize that you're feeling a tiny bit of disappointment, which maybe causes a little bit of annoyance. You move on, tell a joke, try to appreciate what you did get or kindly ask for the right thing, because it's no big deal. It wasn't a logical thought process deciding it wasn't a big deal, it's just how you felt.

And when you enter "my 13-year old child is dead" territory, being stoic is psychopathic. They will never forget that day, that phone-call, they're experiencing what truly may be the worst days of their lives. They should bawl their eyes out with their friends and families, they should mourn the loss of their son. And extend that mourning to the police officer who will live with the blood of a child on his hands. That's what it is to be an adult.

And on the other spectrum is selongb, who hasn't matured into his emotions enough to feel the difference between grief and anger.
User avatar
#107 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what stoicism means. Dont feel bad about that. There seems to a lot of misconceptions on this subject. Stoicism isn't about repression, its about not letting your emotions cloud your logical faculties. You still feel anger, love or whatever, but you distance yourself enough from emotions to make reasonable choices in spite of those. You still deal with shit, you just dont express your emotions needlessly and you dont let it cloud your judgement. That is stoicism.

You're correct in your assessment, that being ruled by ones emotions are the basic response of humans. Indeed, most living things respond with emotions, it is simply the basic response of our biology. However, I posit that we're intelligent and evolved enough to rise above our basic instincts and address our issues in a manner apart from our basic instincts. If you feel like you're too basic to accomplish this, then I must say, I deeply pity you.

I didn't say that the parents themselves weren't allowed to show any emotional response to this. That is only understandable. I was referring to everyone else. Curiously, the people who usually act the calmest during these kinds of events, are the people most directly impacted by it. Usually, the people who piss themselves crying and moaning, rioting and looting, are barely even related to the people concerned.

Oh, and by the way. I am fucking smart. Did you miss the part where I outlined that I am a physicist with a (technically) joint specialty in Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics? I think I have earned the right to consider myself pretty smart.
User avatar
#117 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
The cringe man, you're making it really hard not to dislike you. Like that spoiler... wow. Talk like a human, nobody likes a Sheldon. I honestly say that with the best intentions.

I understand stoicism, "what need is there to weep over parts of life, the whole of it calls for tears.", "expect the worst and you can't be sad", "when life gives you lemons...", etc. But it's merely a tool and it's unhealthy to over-demonstrate, lest you fall into the territory of cynicism.

Understand the vast plethora of emotions, the vast range of responses. Stoicism is great for letting bygones be bygones and making lemonade, but it isn't an appropriate reaction to a great many situations and can not only stifle personal development, but greatly hamper one's ability to embrace the beauty in life.
User avatar
#120 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
So its cringeworthy to be smart and to be proud of that fact? What manner of philistine are you? Are you sincerely suggesting that I shouldn't be proud of myself for having accomplished such a great academic feat in the least time possible? I never skipped a fucking beat. Straight from one academic accomplish right into the next, with no breaks or failures on the way. If I continue this pattern, I'll be a bonafide scientist by the time I'm 25. How many people can claim that? Few. Very very few. And you're telling me that thats nothing to be proud of? Fuck off.

And this is just my academic/intellectual accomplishments. I've worked through all manner of psychological shit in my time, going from a weird, fat, quasi-autistic shut-in to a cool, confident, slim, social motherfucker with too many friends to keep track of!
I've climbed mountains both academically, psychologically, socially and internally. The only thing I'm missing is to climb a literal mountain and I can honestly say that there isn't a mountain imaginable that I haven't climbed. I fucking love myself for that. I've proven time and again, that there isn't a thing in this world that I cant do, if I set my mind to it.
And then, after all of that, you sincerely say to me, that my pride in my own accomplishments is cringeworthy? To love and respect oneself is cringeworthy? To have confidence in ones abilities and self-worth, is cringeworthy? Fuck off.

If it sounds like I'm reacting a bit strongly to this, then yes. I am. I am reacting strongly to this, because the view you expose, this perverse notion that confidence and a strident personality is somehow "cringeworthy" or unacceptable, is a cancer on the collective zeitgeist. This sinister, idiotic, philistine-worshiping notion is what prevents people from doing anything of note with their lives. If everyone shared in your disgusting view, nobody would do anything. They would just sit around, feeling bashful towards everyone else, for fear that anyone might conceivably think that they thought themselves better than anyone else!
What a dark and sinister hell that would be...

So you can take your notions of "cringe" and shove them up your enlarged urethra. If you have an issue with how I conduct myself, please dont hesitate to say so, but try to shame me for my confidence and sense of self-worth and I'll have words to you.
User avatar
#130 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
I do feel bad I upset you, though; it wasn't my intention. A bit of friendly criticism and I'll leave it on a high note.

Ttalking about how smart / cool / valuable one's self is, isn't becoming to anyone else. It's pretty easily understood that it makes others feel that you're arrogant, better than them, and sometimes shows that you don't actually have faith in those aspects of your life. The room gets awkward when that guy walks in.

And even worse, you're projecting into the void of the internet. None of us know you to verify it, your life is invisible to us. So when you talk about all these things, that cringe really shines through. Meanwhile, someone like Notch can rag onto some asshole online, bringing up his successes, and have the whole community think he's a fucking fireman. Because we directly know those successes. He's absolutely not projecting, he's not acting better than people for any reason that to tell someone off, and he's on the higher ground morally. Contextually, it becomes appropriate. And context is always king.

It's also fairly easy to tell when people are speaking naturally or trying to force out "smart speak".

And, honestly, you're not bragging about anything special. School is tough, but a 4 year degree is often up by the time someone is 23. Sometimes less from fast-track classes or early college. Grad school takes another 2 years. So becoming a bonafide scientist at 25 is pretty much the norm. Having friends? Shit, most of us have a few. And as you get older it becomes quality over quantity. We all had a lot of "friends" in high school, but as an adult it's common to just have a few intimate friends. You're skinny? Well... good for not being a fat slob?

But none of that means anything. Nothing I say should mean anything.

Everyone struggles to grow up, everyone struggles to deal with life. I dropped out of school for depression for a year. I still fight with it some nights. I've been blessed with great things, weighed with heavy burdens, walked down my own path of life and still got plenty more to go. It's okay to admit when you're lost, broken, or confused. Cry, talk to someone, whatever you need to do to let it out. Stoicism doesn't work to solve the real burning questions every single one of us needs answered. You can't repress emotion with logic.

Learn to love yourself for who you are, learn to be proud of any mountain that you climb - even if it's an ant hill. That doesn't mean accepting being fat or lazy, it just means loving yourself enough to change it and loving yourself to recognize your accomplishments. If you really are becoming a physicist soon, FUCK YEAH! Be fucking proud of it! Some fuck-boi on the internet says that's gay? Who gives a shit, you're a stoic, scientific bad-ass. You overcame social anxiety? Shit man, that's dope as fuck. Worked out and got healthy? Fuck, you deserve a beer. If people demean those accomplishments, it's just projection, ignore it and move on. If they have valid criticism, embrace it so that you can become a better person!

But... at the same time... don't be that guy I mentioned earlier. Like all things in life, it's about balance. Pride is good until it becomes hubris. Efficiency is nice until it becomes laziness. Optimism is good until it becomes naivety. And pessimism is healthy up until cynicism.

But what do I know, I'm just a stupid fucking dog. Don't listen to me. Woof woof.
#121 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Everyone on the internet is a dog. And you are, most definitely, not a stoic.
User avatar
#122 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
I shall reiterate the point I made previously: It is astonishing how little people these days understand of stoicism.

You seem to have confused stoicism with cynicism and/or nihilism.
If you dont think I'm particularly stoic, thats fine, but if you dont plan to somehow argue that point, then stating it is pointless and stupid.

Also, what in the world do you mean by "Everyone on the internet is a dog"? If you wish to have a conversation, a good first step is to stop talking in riddles...
#124 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Someone on the internet makes a slight comment about how your flaunting of your "intelligence" is off-putting and cringy... and you explode in a 407 word essay. Meanwhile, Seneca was forced to kill himself in a bathroom and chose those famous last words.

Instead of being stoic, you chose to lash out. You promoted your ascension from emotion in this thread, yet the moment someone causes you to - unintentionally might I add - question your own self worth, you are unable to control your own emotions. You can't simply brush it off, maintain your own faith in yourself, be stoic in your thoughts and conclude nothing good will come from lashing out. That reply is the very antithesis of stoicism.

The fact I have to explain this, the fact that you could not make that basic inference, be ashamed, and move on, is the saddest part.

And it's not a hard riddle, nor the first time it's been used. It's based on an old comic "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog". You're talking about how successful you are. Scientist, confident, sexy, so many friends! But to the internet... you're just words. Not a soul here will believe the things you say about yourself without evidence. On the internet, everyone is a dog.
User avatar
#129 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
Oh, and I suppose you can clearly see that I am red-hot with anger? I suppose, that you can remotely view my location and divine that I am indeed very very angry?
I am not, in fact, angry. I am not even particularly perturbed. You wrote words to me on the internet and I responded my words. What else would you have me do, when I take notice of something I disapprove of? Just ignore it, in a somewhat vain attempt to prove my stoicism? To who exactly, would I prove that?
Again, you seem to have grossly misunderstood stoicism. You seem to have it confused with nihilism. I did not respond with "an essay" because you got me emotional, but because I had a strong opinion about what you wrote. There is nothing "non-stoic" about having strong opinions about things. I merely took your opinion to be an extension of a nasty societal trend I have been noticing, and made my argument as thoroughly as I could. You've conflated stoicism with nihilism and indifference. That is certainly not what stoicism is. This isn't the first time I inform you of your error either. Why do you insist on maintaining this faulty view of stoicism? It strikes me as rather odd.

Its true that people dont generally believe what anyone says on the internet. I had assumed - wrongly perhaps - that this anonymity meant that we offered each other the benefit of the doubt. True, you have no proof that what I say here is true, but what reason do you have to disbelieve me? What benefit do I earn from lying to you? Do you expect me to doxx myself, just to prove that what I say is true? The triviality of these kinds of conversations, means that the price of believing each other is very insignificant, so why not merely assume that the other party is telling the truth and move on, based on that assumption? What do you lose?

Oh, and by the way, I very specifically did not use the word "sexy" to describe myself. I do not consider myself sexy. On a good day, I can style myself out to be sexy, but it isn't a natural state of mine, so I dont use it.
#131 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Jesus, man, you're going for the "I'm not angry despite being obviously angry and still writing in aggressive tone" card? It's bold, but I don't think it's going to convince anyone here. Though if it convinces you, I guess that counts for something.

> Just ignore it, in a somewhat vain attempt to prove my stoicism?

Well if you're preaching stoicism in the context of the death of a 13-year old boy and a perception of systemic racism... Yes. I absolutely would expect that from you when an internet comment indirectly, accidentally insults your intelligence.

> There is nothing "non-stoic" about having strong opinions about things.

Buddy, you're really not getting that philosophy. The guy literally looked his wife and daughter in the eyes and said, "what need is there to weep over parts of life, the whole of it calls for tears?", as he was forced to commit suicide. That is stoicism. Sure, you feel those emotions, but you don't act on them. Because by reacting to them, you merely cause further issues. Because, in the scheme of things, that emotion is nothing but a fleeting moment. And because a stoic is not surprised by anything, and thus cannot be emotionally disturbed by it. The fool cries for his loss, the stoic cries for the fool.

And, by your definition, you shouldn't have gotten riled up at all. You should have analyzed the situation and crafted a response that wasn't aggressive, that was convincing, that was appropriate and level-headed. What line of logic were you using then, when using aggressive tone has never convinced a single person in history? It doesn't fit your own definition.

You lashed out emotionally, and that is not stoic. It's as simple as that.

> I had assumed - wrongly perhaps - that this anonymity meant that we offered each other the benefit of the doubt.

Very wrongly. What line of logic even is that, "people don't believe people on the internet, so they'll give each other the benefit of the doubt that they aren't lying"? That makes no sense.

> What benefit do I earn from lying to you?

Lots of reasons. Projection of fantasy, faulty evidence for your argument, convincing yourself of your own worth, exaggerating or crafting expertise so we'll appeal to authority, just plain playing pretend / role-playing. People do stupid shit all the time for lots of reasons. Making up stories is not surprising.

> Do you expect me to doxx myself, just to prove that what I say is true?

No, which is why you can't use anecdotes for shit and appeals to authority don't work. That's why the only places worth their salt for AMAs or "expert opinions" have an unbiased third party, such as a moderator or news-caster, approve their identity.

> so why not merely assume that the other party is telling the truth and move on, based on that assumption?

Any successful line of reasoning is "zero trust". The proper line of thinking is why in God's almighty name would we assume the other party is ever telling the truth? How did we get from you talking about how smart you are to zero trust systems? This was all about you flaunting your baseless certifications around for no reason. You weren't even using them to prove anything!

> On a good day, I can style myself out to be sexy, but it isn't a natural state of mine, so I dont use it.

It never ends.
User avatar
#132 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
Aggressive tone? Can you clarify? Looking over our comments, you seem to be the one who is most insulting and aggressive, frankly. I believe that I merely word my responses in as strong a tone as I feel is appropriate. This media lacks bodily language and tone, so instead, I use a bit more of a bombastic vocabulary and a few swear words for added emphasis. Y'know, using the strengths of the given media to fill in the blanks. If you've interpreted that as me being angry with you, then I think we've come off on the wrong foot here.

You seem to have a very narrow minded view of stoicism. What you describe, would make sense, if one adhered to stoicism as a form of religion or dogmatic philosophical framework. I do neither of those things. The important part of any philosophy, is to view the entirety of it, and then pick and choose whatever bits of it you find to make sense, in order to piece together your own view of things. If your end product is sufficiently close to a given set of recognized ideological ideas, you can call it by that name. That is what I'm doing. I am not a religious, and I refuse to accept the opinions of others if I cannot find the reason in them.
I rarely quote other people for much the same reason. If I do, I rarely inform other people that I am quoting someone else. People should not accept a position because that position was formulated by somebody famous. If the point doesn't make sense coming from me, then it doesn't sense coming from somebody else either.
You appear to have a very ridge view of how philosophical ideas should be applied. I dont think its a healthy view and I dont think you will find a lot of use for it. I suspect, it will ultimately lead you to be a very unlikable, dogmatic and narrow minded person.

I consider my replies to have been both convincing, appropriate and level headed. It is regrettable that you dont agree, but I cannot help that you and I think differently here. I could not hand craft my replies to suit your standards, only my own. I can elucidate to you, that your replies do not meet mine, on any of those points, so I guess we're both guilty of this. That is one of the weaknesses of this written medium. If both parties dont give either the benefit of the doubt and cut each other some slack, communication doesn't really lead anywhere.
I personally believe that you're the one being unfair, unreasonable and quite frankly, rather rude and uncompromising here. Although I suspect you probably feel the same way about me.

The reason I ask for this benefit of the doubt, is because without it, these kinds of communications have no meaning or value at all. What point is there, to a conversation wherein you doubt every single aspect of the other person? Going by your logic of extreme doubt, what assurance do you have, that I am not merely a very sophisticated Bot? What assurance do you have, that my replies are not merely randomly generated and that it just coincidentally happens to fit your replies? It is unlikely, to be sure, but not altogether impossible.
Without the benefit of the doubt, these kinds of conversations has no value and we might as well not have them. If you distrust me so extremely, why are you writing with me?

Lastly, the nature of conversation has borne has us from topic to another. I am not trying to have some kind of battle with you. I'm kind of bored, since I've decided to take this Friday night to relax, and unwind by myself in my apartment. It isn't important for me to stay on one specific topic, since this is basically just entertainment to me. If you desperately want to stay on topic and discuss how awesome I am, we can go back to that, although frankly, it isn't something I often bother to talk about.
It might sound strange to you now, but I dont actually talk very often of how great I feel. I am perfectly satisfied with having that be relegated to an internal process, of which I derive immense joy, unbeknownst to anybody else.
#134 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
(CONT)

> Although I suspect you probably feel the same way about me.
I think you recently learned about stoicism, liked the concept but didn't quite grasp true application, talked about it on the internet, got hurt when somebody accidentally insulted you, threw a fit, and now you're trying to recover. Because that's all I've read.

> What point is there, to a conversation wherein you doubt every single aspect of the other person?
I have never had a conversation with another engineer that required me to hear their credentials, how smart they are, how many friends they have. Never have I had a debate where it was pertinent to trust an anecdotal story. And never in my life have I been convinced my opinion was wrong because someone "totally promised for sure" something I could not witness was true. Otherwise, I would believe in ghosts and monsters under the bed.

Empirical measurements are absolute. Mathematics, logic, statistics cannot be denied. But almost every man will fall back on lying.

> Going by your logic of extreme doubt, what assurance do you have, that I am not merely a very sophisticated Bot?
Why would that matter? I don't know if you are, I don't care if you are. It's that simple. Your turn - please tell me why you think it's important we know how smart you are?

> Without the benefit of the doubt, these kinds of conversations has no value and we might as well not have them.
Every single one of us is going to die. The universe is going to wither away. All experiences will fade into oblivion, all knowledge lost, and all philosophy rendered null and void. Yet the value of experience is not diminished in the slightest and we still want to experience it.

You could be a bot, today could be a dream, my life could be a simulation, but that would take nothing away from how real it is right now, in this moment. The value doesn't come from finality. And yet you call me narrow-minded.

> I'm kind of bored, since I've decided to take this Friday night to relax, and unwind by myself in my apartment.
Sounds like a nice time, man. I'll have a beer and a smoke later tonight with the wife as well - it's her birthday tomorrow. I'll be sure to tip it in hopes you have a good night!

> If you desperately want to stay on topic and discuss how awesome I am, we can go back to that, although frankly, it isn't something I often bother to talk about.
I hope that's satire.

> It might sound strange to you now, but I dont actually talk very often of how great I feel. I am perfectly satisfied with having that be relegated to an internal process, of which I derive immense joy, unbeknownst to anybody else.
That's not strange at all. Most well-functioning, fully matured adults are like that... Happy. And if that's true, I couldn't be more happy for and proud of you. Cheers, mate.
#133 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
> So you can take your notions of "cringe" and shove them up your enlarged urethra.
What a happy boy you are.

> You seem to have a very narrow minded view of stoicism.
The actual definition? What the Hell - One minute you're telling people to apply stoicism to the death of children, but when you lash out it's all about cherry picking?

> The important part of any philosophy, is to view the entirety of it, and then pick and choose whatever bits of it you find to make sense,
I have been saying this the whole time.

> If your end product is sufficiently close to a given set of recognized ideological ideas, you can call it by that name
Absolutely not.

> I am not a religious
Philosophy is not religion, nor it is a dogma, stop using those words. It's insulting to the people who derived these schools of thought.

> I refuse to accept the opinions of others if I cannot find the reason in them.
How narrow-minded.

> I rarely quote other people for much the same reason.
W...What? Quoting people isn't an appeal to authority. Seriously? Do you honestly think like this?

> If I do, I rarely inform other people that I am quoting someone else.
That's called plagiarism. It's generally considered a dick move. Though I totally believe you on this one, you're stealing my entire argument.

> You appear to have a very ridge view of how philosophical ideas should be applied.
You aren't very good at listening, since you're just repeating what I've already said, passing it off for yourself, then trying to say I'm the dogmatic one. You literally argued people shouldn't be upset at the death of a 13-year old because they need to employ stoicism. Make up your mind.

> I suspect, it will ultimately lead you to be a very unlikable, dogmatic and narrow minded person.
Your social skills are impeccable, no wonder you have "too many friends to keep track of"...

> I consider my replies to have been both convincing, appropriate and level headed.
You mean before or after telling me to shove foreign objects in my urethra, against the philosophy you were touting?

> If both parties dont give either the benefit of the doubt and cut each other some slack, communication doesn't really lead anywhere.
That's not how debate works.

> I personally believe that you're the one being unfair, unreasonable and quite frankly, rather rude and uncompromising here.
Unfair? Maybe. Unreasonable? I wouldn't say it, but you're more than welcome to disagree. Rude? Well, one of us told the other to fuck off multiple times and to insert foreign objects in said person's urethra. The other noticed they may have hurt someone's feelings, and consequently wrote out a long comment intended to apologize, clarify, and bolster spirits.

I wonder which was which.

I don't know how to express this any clearer than I already have: I honestly wish you the best. I didn't say you were being cringy to offend you, I was giving friendly advice. It came off wrong - you're right about written text being a poor medium - I apolgized for that. My tone's a bit snarky, some sarcasm thrown in, and as the conversation teeters I'm being a bit abrupt. But unfair, unreasonable, and rude? Come on.

(CONT)
User avatar
#101 - thefates (09/16/2016) [-]
Crying and mourning are acceptible. Anger and the seeking of retribution against someone that did their job is not. You're allowed to feel emotion without endangering others.

What selongb was saying from the start nearly insinuated that people should be feeling some sort of anger towards the police officers. Which shouldn't be so. It's a simple fact that the child caused the whole issue.
User avatar
#103 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
They're both on opposite ends of the spectrum. krobeles thinks the proper reaction is stoicism, repression of emotion. selongb thinks the proper reaction is anger, an over-expression of emotion. Like I said, you're absolutely right; embrace these emotions, mourn your child, mourn the police officer, be strong together, and just keep living.

I had a lengthy reply to selongb higher up, saying that he's confusing grief and anger, and condemning this behavior which will only add to the suffering. >>#84
#69 - vlkafenryka (09/16/2016) [-]
You are a douchey little edge lord, i dont care how old you are or how mature you think you are, you clearly never matured past the age of 13 which is obvious because you are a fuckin 2edgy4u little shitiwt who is purposely dark antagonistic and obtuse to make yourself feel better that you dont actually feel human emotion and will probably end up killing yourself.
#40 - No, people dont "need to scream". Thats a childish a…  [+] (22 replies) 09/16/2016 on HE A GOOD BOY +12
User avatar
#43 - selongb (09/16/2016) [-]
Are... are you actually fucking autistic?

> those emotions are not at all legitimate, seeing as nothing wrong has occurred.

Feelings are not rational and there for can not be justified or unjustified by an examination of right and wrong. I find it inconceivable that someone who is at least old enough to type as you have, is unaware of this fact. Tell me, have you never been "unjustly" angry, or otherwise felt an emotion with no rational cause? If so then please make your way to Yale Medical, as you are an extremely unique subject, and it would be such a waste for academic not to study you.

> No, people dont "need to scream"

Yes, yes they do. the expression of ones ill feelings allows one to face and eventually move past them. perhaps I should speak this in a different media, as you clearly can't understand the argument set in print.
Sometimes I Guess There Just Arent Enough Rocks
This is the great failure of stoicism, internalization of volatile emotions will always lead to an emotional break. At some critical point, you will break, and like the flood waters of a collapsing damn, so too shall your repressed emotions flood out. And mark my words, it is just as destructive as the aforementioned flood.
User avatar
#45 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
You're correct. Feelings are not rational and for this very reason, it isn't rational to act on them, at least not in such a strong manner as you suggest.
I have felt unjustified emotions. I was usually drunk, in love or some other compromised mental state. I doubt that these people either of those things, unless you of course consider extreme stupidity to a perpetually compromised mental state...

You can face and move past your emotions without screaming. Again I ask, how old are you? By the sound of things, I'de guess very young or very inexperienced. 14, perhaps?
This is how functional adults deal with their problems. Not by screaming, not by throwing a tantrum, not by crying. They deal with their problems by calmly analyzing the situation and coming to the best possible solution of whatever problem they face. Throwing a childish temper tantrum over somebody you've never met, is hardly the best possible solution to any problem.

I am sincerely curious of how old you are. The views you express are very common amongst somewhat younger, less educated and inexperienced people. So then. How old are you?
User avatar
#46 - selongb (09/16/2016) [-]
How dark your existence dear krobeles, that you count love as a compromised mental state. Love, such an integral facet of the human experience.

But I digress, Since we agree that feelings are not rational, I will reconstruct my point from there to try and convay my thoughts on the matter properly to you.

I also agree that feelings should not be acted upon, when in pursuit of solution. So it should stand that before you attempt to find solutions to a problem, you should first dispel emotion clouding your judgement?

If this is so, and I am sure that it is, then we need to know, how best we dispel emotion? I have posited that, open expression of emotion is the best and quickest way to deal with ones emotional state.

Then, and only after emotions have been handled is one able to calmly and clearly analyze the situation at hand.

As for my age, I am 21, in my senior year of University, studying Biotechnology. I also am rereading "The Last Days of Socrates" for a class, so forgive my verbosity and structure, it rubs off on you really fucking quick.

And please, feel free to reciprocate my gesture and enlighten me to your age.
User avatar
#48 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
Its not that my existence is dark, I just face reality. Its not that love isn't nice, but theres simply no getting around it. When in love, you do not think like a rational human being with regards to your object of affection. It is thusly, a compromised mental state. That doesn't invalidate it, its just description of it. The rainbow or the northern lights are no less pretty, just because I understand what causes them and how they work.

You really believe that that emotional outburst wont engender an emotional response from other people? Then those people respond emotionally just as you did, and you in turn suffer an emotional response to their reaction to your initial outburst. Its just like a run-away nuclear reaction. Thats where we get angry mobs from, as we've seen in these cases before. In theory, your approach might work, but in practice it certainly does not. We have empirical evidence of this.

I'm 23 in the first year of my masters. Recently finished my bachelors thesis in physics with a (technically) joint specialty in Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics.
User avatar
#50 - selongb (09/16/2016) [-]
>Then those people respond emotionally just as you did, and you in turn suffer an emotional response to their reaction to your initial outburst. Its just like a run-away nuclear reaction.

But do you realize what you just described? It is conversation, all be it an extremely messy one. I will readily confess that my method for emotional dispersion is far from perfect, however, I would suggest that it is a far better method than the stoicism that you seem to be espousing.

I bring you back to the damn, it is bound to burst at some point, and when it does, can you not say that there will be a reaction from the opposing side that will match it in some way? If it must be so for my system then so should it be for yours. Then what is better, to bear the brunt of light flooding now and then, or to store all emotional tension up, ever under the threat of a tsunami?
User avatar
#51 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
I dont agree that it necessarily has to burst. You dont need a vocal outlet to work through your problems. You can relegate that to an internal process.
If you make it the norm, that any degree of emotional outbursting is acceptable under these circumstances, you're going to incentivised people to deploy a higher degree of Pathos in their arguments, because you've normalized emotion as a reasonable approach to problems. This in turn, will lead to demagoguery and preachers being even more influential than they already are and ultimately, logic and reason will be drowned out in a sea of emotion and Pathos.
You see, emotion comes more naturally to humans than logic and reason, which ensures that logic and reason can never be a totalitarian system. Try as we might, we can never be 100% logical. Logic and reason is something that must be cultivated through years of hard work and effort. Emotion on the other hand, is something we're all keenly in touch with from the moment we're born. We can never rid ourselves entirely of emotion, but we can indeed rid ourselves entirely of logic.
That is why my system will never become totalitarian, but your system almost inevitably will. It is just a matter of time.

This is why I propose a system of stoicism. I agree, that if stoicism is practiced incorrectly, then yes, it might lead to a "tsunami" as you say. However, I think we should incentivise people to constantly better themselves and rise above their base urges. To learn to practice and understand logic, reason and stoicism, to the point where this "tsunami" wont occur due to peoples incorrect practice of stoicism.
In essence, I think my approach is more liberal and respectful of peoples agency than yours. I think your approach - unintentionally, I do think - assumes that people are unable to master themselves and practice their own intellectual agency.
User avatar
#93 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Holy fuck, this is some /r/iamverysmart shit.

Emotions rule every facet of our existence. Being an "adult" isn't this intellectual battle of stoicism and logic like children believe, it's growing into those emotions and embracing your humanity. You couldn't be more wrong than:

> This is how functional adults deal with their problems. Not by screaming, not by throwing a tantrum, not by crying. They deal with their problems by calmly analyzing the situation and coming to the best possible solution of whatever problem they face.

Sure, when it's about minor shit like the barista not getting your coffee right, that's true. But that's not because you toss emotions out the window for rationality, it's because you're better in-sync with them; as a kid, it's hard to tell the difference between "slightly annoyed" and "fuck the world". But as an adult, you realize that you're feeling a tiny bit of disappointment, which maybe causes a little bit of annoyance. You move on, tell a joke, try to appreciate what you did get or kindly ask for the right thing, because it's no big deal. It wasn't a logical thought process deciding it wasn't a big deal, it's just how you felt.

And when you enter "my 13-year old child is dead" territory, being stoic is psychopathic. They will never forget that day, that phone-call, they're experiencing what truly may be the worst days of their lives. They should bawl their eyes out with their friends and families, they should mourn the loss of their son. And extend that mourning to the police officer who will live with the blood of a child on his hands. That's what it is to be an adult.

And on the other spectrum is selongb, who hasn't matured into his emotions enough to feel the difference between grief and anger.
User avatar
#107 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what stoicism means. Dont feel bad about that. There seems to a lot of misconceptions on this subject. Stoicism isn't about repression, its about not letting your emotions cloud your logical faculties. You still feel anger, love or whatever, but you distance yourself enough from emotions to make reasonable choices in spite of those. You still deal with shit, you just dont express your emotions needlessly and you dont let it cloud your judgement. That is stoicism.

You're correct in your assessment, that being ruled by ones emotions are the basic response of humans. Indeed, most living things respond with emotions, it is simply the basic response of our biology. However, I posit that we're intelligent and evolved enough to rise above our basic instincts and address our issues in a manner apart from our basic instincts. If you feel like you're too basic to accomplish this, then I must say, I deeply pity you.

I didn't say that the parents themselves weren't allowed to show any emotional response to this. That is only understandable. I was referring to everyone else. Curiously, the people who usually act the calmest during these kinds of events, are the people most directly impacted by it. Usually, the people who piss themselves crying and moaning, rioting and looting, are barely even related to the people concerned.

Oh, and by the way. I am fucking smart. Did you miss the part where I outlined that I am a physicist with a (technically) joint specialty in Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics? I think I have earned the right to consider myself pretty smart.
User avatar
#117 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
The cringe man, you're making it really hard not to dislike you. Like that spoiler... wow. Talk like a human, nobody likes a Sheldon. I honestly say that with the best intentions.

I understand stoicism, "what need is there to weep over parts of life, the whole of it calls for tears.", "expect the worst and you can't be sad", "when life gives you lemons...", etc. But it's merely a tool and it's unhealthy to over-demonstrate, lest you fall into the territory of cynicism.

Understand the vast plethora of emotions, the vast range of responses. Stoicism is great for letting bygones be bygones and making lemonade, but it isn't an appropriate reaction to a great many situations and can not only stifle personal development, but greatly hamper one's ability to embrace the beauty in life.
User avatar
#120 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
So its cringeworthy to be smart and to be proud of that fact? What manner of philistine are you? Are you sincerely suggesting that I shouldn't be proud of myself for having accomplished such a great academic feat in the least time possible? I never skipped a fucking beat. Straight from one academic accomplish right into the next, with no breaks or failures on the way. If I continue this pattern, I'll be a bonafide scientist by the time I'm 25. How many people can claim that? Few. Very very few. And you're telling me that thats nothing to be proud of? Fuck off.

And this is just my academic/intellectual accomplishments. I've worked through all manner of psychological shit in my time, going from a weird, fat, quasi-autistic shut-in to a cool, confident, slim, social motherfucker with too many friends to keep track of!
I've climbed mountains both academically, psychologically, socially and internally. The only thing I'm missing is to climb a literal mountain and I can honestly say that there isn't a mountain imaginable that I haven't climbed. I fucking love myself for that. I've proven time and again, that there isn't a thing in this world that I cant do, if I set my mind to it.
And then, after all of that, you sincerely say to me, that my pride in my own accomplishments is cringeworthy? To love and respect oneself is cringeworthy? To have confidence in ones abilities and self-worth, is cringeworthy? Fuck off.

If it sounds like I'm reacting a bit strongly to this, then yes. I am. I am reacting strongly to this, because the view you expose, this perverse notion that confidence and a strident personality is somehow "cringeworthy" or unacceptable, is a cancer on the collective zeitgeist. This sinister, idiotic, philistine-worshiping notion is what prevents people from doing anything of note with their lives. If everyone shared in your disgusting view, nobody would do anything. They would just sit around, feeling bashful towards everyone else, for fear that anyone might conceivably think that they thought themselves better than anyone else!
What a dark and sinister hell that would be...

So you can take your notions of "cringe" and shove them up your enlarged urethra. If you have an issue with how I conduct myself, please dont hesitate to say so, but try to shame me for my confidence and sense of self-worth and I'll have words to you.
User avatar
#130 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
I do feel bad I upset you, though; it wasn't my intention. A bit of friendly criticism and I'll leave it on a high note.

Ttalking about how smart / cool / valuable one's self is, isn't becoming to anyone else. It's pretty easily understood that it makes others feel that you're arrogant, better than them, and sometimes shows that you don't actually have faith in those aspects of your life. The room gets awkward when that guy walks in.

And even worse, you're projecting into the void of the internet. None of us know you to verify it, your life is invisible to us. So when you talk about all these things, that cringe really shines through. Meanwhile, someone like Notch can rag onto some asshole online, bringing up his successes, and have the whole community think he's a fucking fireman. Because we directly know those successes. He's absolutely not projecting, he's not acting better than people for any reason that to tell someone off, and he's on the higher ground morally. Contextually, it becomes appropriate. And context is always king.

It's also fairly easy to tell when people are speaking naturally or trying to force out "smart speak".

And, honestly, you're not bragging about anything special. School is tough, but a 4 year degree is often up by the time someone is 23. Sometimes less from fast-track classes or early college. Grad school takes another 2 years. So becoming a bonafide scientist at 25 is pretty much the norm. Having friends? Shit, most of us have a few. And as you get older it becomes quality over quantity. We all had a lot of "friends" in high school, but as an adult it's common to just have a few intimate friends. You're skinny? Well... good for not being a fat slob?

But none of that means anything. Nothing I say should mean anything.

Everyone struggles to grow up, everyone struggles to deal with life. I dropped out of school for depression for a year. I still fight with it some nights. I've been blessed with great things, weighed with heavy burdens, walked down my own path of life and still got plenty more to go. It's okay to admit when you're lost, broken, or confused. Cry, talk to someone, whatever you need to do to let it out. Stoicism doesn't work to solve the real burning questions every single one of us needs answered. You can't repress emotion with logic.

Learn to love yourself for who you are, learn to be proud of any mountain that you climb - even if it's an ant hill. That doesn't mean accepting being fat or lazy, it just means loving yourself enough to change it and loving yourself to recognize your accomplishments. If you really are becoming a physicist soon, FUCK YEAH! Be fucking proud of it! Some fuck-boi on the internet says that's gay? Who gives a shit, you're a stoic, scientific bad-ass. You overcame social anxiety? Shit man, that's dope as fuck. Worked out and got healthy? Fuck, you deserve a beer. If people demean those accomplishments, it's just projection, ignore it and move on. If they have valid criticism, embrace it so that you can become a better person!

But... at the same time... don't be that guy I mentioned earlier. Like all things in life, it's about balance. Pride is good until it becomes hubris. Efficiency is nice until it becomes laziness. Optimism is good until it becomes naivety. And pessimism is healthy up until cynicism.

But what do I know, I'm just a stupid fucking dog. Don't listen to me. Woof woof.
#121 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Everyone on the internet is a dog. And you are, most definitely, not a stoic.
User avatar
#122 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
I shall reiterate the point I made previously: It is astonishing how little people these days understand of stoicism.

You seem to have confused stoicism with cynicism and/or nihilism.
If you dont think I'm particularly stoic, thats fine, but if you dont plan to somehow argue that point, then stating it is pointless and stupid.

Also, what in the world do you mean by "Everyone on the internet is a dog"? If you wish to have a conversation, a good first step is to stop talking in riddles...
#124 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Someone on the internet makes a slight comment about how your flaunting of your "intelligence" is off-putting and cringy... and you explode in a 407 word essay. Meanwhile, Seneca was forced to kill himself in a bathroom and chose those famous last words.

Instead of being stoic, you chose to lash out. You promoted your ascension from emotion in this thread, yet the moment someone causes you to - unintentionally might I add - question your own self worth, you are unable to control your own emotions. You can't simply brush it off, maintain your own faith in yourself, be stoic in your thoughts and conclude nothing good will come from lashing out. That reply is the very antithesis of stoicism.

The fact I have to explain this, the fact that you could not make that basic inference, be ashamed, and move on, is the saddest part.

And it's not a hard riddle, nor the first time it's been used. It's based on an old comic "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog". You're talking about how successful you are. Scientist, confident, sexy, so many friends! But to the internet... you're just words. Not a soul here will believe the things you say about yourself without evidence. On the internet, everyone is a dog.
User avatar
#129 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
Oh, and I suppose you can clearly see that I am red-hot with anger? I suppose, that you can remotely view my location and divine that I am indeed very very angry?
I am not, in fact, angry. I am not even particularly perturbed. You wrote words to me on the internet and I responded my words. What else would you have me do, when I take notice of something I disapprove of? Just ignore it, in a somewhat vain attempt to prove my stoicism? To who exactly, would I prove that?
Again, you seem to have grossly misunderstood stoicism. You seem to have it confused with nihilism. I did not respond with "an essay" because you got me emotional, but because I had a strong opinion about what you wrote. There is nothing "non-stoic" about having strong opinions about things. I merely took your opinion to be an extension of a nasty societal trend I have been noticing, and made my argument as thoroughly as I could. You've conflated stoicism with nihilism and indifference. That is certainly not what stoicism is. This isn't the first time I inform you of your error either. Why do you insist on maintaining this faulty view of stoicism? It strikes me as rather odd.

Its true that people dont generally believe what anyone says on the internet. I had assumed - wrongly perhaps - that this anonymity meant that we offered each other the benefit of the doubt. True, you have no proof that what I say here is true, but what reason do you have to disbelieve me? What benefit do I earn from lying to you? Do you expect me to doxx myself, just to prove that what I say is true? The triviality of these kinds of conversations, means that the price of believing each other is very insignificant, so why not merely assume that the other party is telling the truth and move on, based on that assumption? What do you lose?

Oh, and by the way, I very specifically did not use the word "sexy" to describe myself. I do not consider myself sexy. On a good day, I can style myself out to be sexy, but it isn't a natural state of mine, so I dont use it.
#131 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Jesus, man, you're going for the "I'm not angry despite being obviously angry and still writing in aggressive tone" card? It's bold, but I don't think it's going to convince anyone here. Though if it convinces you, I guess that counts for something.

> Just ignore it, in a somewhat vain attempt to prove my stoicism?

Well if you're preaching stoicism in the context of the death of a 13-year old boy and a perception of systemic racism... Yes. I absolutely would expect that from you when an internet comment indirectly, accidentally insults your intelligence.

> There is nothing "non-stoic" about having strong opinions about things.

Buddy, you're really not getting that philosophy. The guy literally looked his wife and daughter in the eyes and said, "what need is there to weep over parts of life, the whole of it calls for tears?", as he was forced to commit suicide. That is stoicism. Sure, you feel those emotions, but you don't act on them. Because by reacting to them, you merely cause further issues. Because, in the scheme of things, that emotion is nothing but a fleeting moment. And because a stoic is not surprised by anything, and thus cannot be emotionally disturbed by it. The fool cries for his loss, the stoic cries for the fool.

And, by your definition, you shouldn't have gotten riled up at all. You should have analyzed the situation and crafted a response that wasn't aggressive, that was convincing, that was appropriate and level-headed. What line of logic were you using then, when using aggressive tone has never convinced a single person in history? It doesn't fit your own definition.

You lashed out emotionally, and that is not stoic. It's as simple as that.

> I had assumed - wrongly perhaps - that this anonymity meant that we offered each other the benefit of the doubt.

Very wrongly. What line of logic even is that, "people don't believe people on the internet, so they'll give each other the benefit of the doubt that they aren't lying"? That makes no sense.

> What benefit do I earn from lying to you?

Lots of reasons. Projection of fantasy, faulty evidence for your argument, convincing yourself of your own worth, exaggerating or crafting expertise so we'll appeal to authority, just plain playing pretend / role-playing. People do stupid shit all the time for lots of reasons. Making up stories is not surprising.

> Do you expect me to doxx myself, just to prove that what I say is true?

No, which is why you can't use anecdotes for shit and appeals to authority don't work. That's why the only places worth their salt for AMAs or "expert opinions" have an unbiased third party, such as a moderator or news-caster, approve their identity.

> so why not merely assume that the other party is telling the truth and move on, based on that assumption?

Any successful line of reasoning is "zero trust". The proper line of thinking is why in God's almighty name would we assume the other party is ever telling the truth? How did we get from you talking about how smart you are to zero trust systems? This was all about you flaunting your baseless certifications around for no reason. You weren't even using them to prove anything!

> On a good day, I can style myself out to be sexy, but it isn't a natural state of mine, so I dont use it.

It never ends.
User avatar
#132 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
Aggressive tone? Can you clarify? Looking over our comments, you seem to be the one who is most insulting and aggressive, frankly. I believe that I merely word my responses in as strong a tone as I feel is appropriate. This media lacks bodily language and tone, so instead, I use a bit more of a bombastic vocabulary and a few swear words for added emphasis. Y'know, using the strengths of the given media to fill in the blanks. If you've interpreted that as me being angry with you, then I think we've come off on the wrong foot here.

You seem to have a very narrow minded view of stoicism. What you describe, would make sense, if one adhered to stoicism as a form of religion or dogmatic philosophical framework. I do neither of those things. The important part of any philosophy, is to view the entirety of it, and then pick and choose whatever bits of it you find to make sense, in order to piece together your own view of things. If your end product is sufficiently close to a given set of recognized ideological ideas, you can call it by that name. That is what I'm doing. I am not a religious, and I refuse to accept the opinions of others if I cannot find the reason in them.
I rarely quote other people for much the same reason. If I do, I rarely inform other people that I am quoting someone else. People should not accept a position because that position was formulated by somebody famous. If the point doesn't make sense coming from me, then it doesn't sense coming from somebody else either.
You appear to have a very ridge view of how philosophical ideas should be applied. I dont think its a healthy view and I dont think you will find a lot of use for it. I suspect, it will ultimately lead you to be a very unlikable, dogmatic and narrow minded person.

I consider my replies to have been both convincing, appropriate and level headed. It is regrettable that you dont agree, but I cannot help that you and I think differently here. I could not hand craft my replies to suit your standards, only my own. I can elucidate to you, that your replies do not meet mine, on any of those points, so I guess we're both guilty of this. That is one of the weaknesses of this written medium. If both parties dont give either the benefit of the doubt and cut each other some slack, communication doesn't really lead anywhere.
I personally believe that you're the one being unfair, unreasonable and quite frankly, rather rude and uncompromising here. Although I suspect you probably feel the same way about me.

The reason I ask for this benefit of the doubt, is because without it, these kinds of communications have no meaning or value at all. What point is there, to a conversation wherein you doubt every single aspect of the other person? Going by your logic of extreme doubt, what assurance do you have, that I am not merely a very sophisticated Bot? What assurance do you have, that my replies are not merely randomly generated and that it just coincidentally happens to fit your replies? It is unlikely, to be sure, but not altogether impossible.
Without the benefit of the doubt, these kinds of conversations has no value and we might as well not have them. If you distrust me so extremely, why are you writing with me?

Lastly, the nature of conversation has borne has us from topic to another. I am not trying to have some kind of battle with you. I'm kind of bored, since I've decided to take this Friday night to relax, and unwind by myself in my apartment. It isn't important for me to stay on one specific topic, since this is basically just entertainment to me. If you desperately want to stay on topic and discuss how awesome I am, we can go back to that, although frankly, it isn't something I often bother to talk about.
It might sound strange to you now, but I dont actually talk very often of how great I feel. I am perfectly satisfied with having that be relegated to an internal process, of which I derive immense joy, unbeknownst to anybody else.
#134 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
(CONT)

> Although I suspect you probably feel the same way about me.
I think you recently learned about stoicism, liked the concept but didn't quite grasp true application, talked about it on the internet, got hurt when somebody accidentally insulted you, threw a fit, and now you're trying to recover. Because that's all I've read.

> What point is there, to a conversation wherein you doubt every single aspect of the other person?
I have never had a conversation with another engineer that required me to hear their credentials, how smart they are, how many friends they have. Never have I had a debate where it was pertinent to trust an anecdotal story. And never in my life have I been convinced my opinion was wrong because someone "totally promised for sure" something I could not witness was true. Otherwise, I would believe in ghosts and monsters under the bed.

Empirical measurements are absolute. Mathematics, logic, statistics cannot be denied. But almost every man will fall back on lying.

> Going by your logic of extreme doubt, what assurance do you have, that I am not merely a very sophisticated Bot?
Why would that matter? I don't know if you are, I don't care if you are. It's that simple. Your turn - please tell me why you think it's important we know how smart you are?

> Without the benefit of the doubt, these kinds of conversations has no value and we might as well not have them.
Every single one of us is going to die. The universe is going to wither away. All experiences will fade into oblivion, all knowledge lost, and all philosophy rendered null and void. Yet the value of experience is not diminished in the slightest and we still want to experience it.

You could be a bot, today could be a dream, my life could be a simulation, but that would take nothing away from how real it is right now, in this moment. The value doesn't come from finality. And yet you call me narrow-minded.

> I'm kind of bored, since I've decided to take this Friday night to relax, and unwind by myself in my apartment.
Sounds like a nice time, man. I'll have a beer and a smoke later tonight with the wife as well - it's her birthday tomorrow. I'll be sure to tip it in hopes you have a good night!

> If you desperately want to stay on topic and discuss how awesome I am, we can go back to that, although frankly, it isn't something I often bother to talk about.
I hope that's satire.

> It might sound strange to you now, but I dont actually talk very often of how great I feel. I am perfectly satisfied with having that be relegated to an internal process, of which I derive immense joy, unbeknownst to anybody else.
That's not strange at all. Most well-functioning, fully matured adults are like that... Happy. And if that's true, I couldn't be more happy for and proud of you. Cheers, mate.
#133 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
> So you can take your notions of "cringe" and shove them up your enlarged urethra.
What a happy boy you are.

> You seem to have a very narrow minded view of stoicism.
The actual definition? What the Hell - One minute you're telling people to apply stoicism to the death of children, but when you lash out it's all about cherry picking?

> The important part of any philosophy, is to view the entirety of it, and then pick and choose whatever bits of it you find to make sense,
I have been saying this the whole time.

> If your end product is sufficiently close to a given set of recognized ideological ideas, you can call it by that name
Absolutely not.

> I am not a religious
Philosophy is not religion, nor it is a dogma, stop using those words. It's insulting to the people who derived these schools of thought.

> I refuse to accept the opinions of others if I cannot find the reason in them.
How narrow-minded.

> I rarely quote other people for much the same reason.
W...What? Quoting people isn't an appeal to authority. Seriously? Do you honestly think like this?

> If I do, I rarely inform other people that I am quoting someone else.
That's called plagiarism. It's generally considered a dick move. Though I totally believe you on this one, you're stealing my entire argument.

> You appear to have a very ridge view of how philosophical ideas should be applied.
You aren't very good at listening, since you're just repeating what I've already said, passing it off for yourself, then trying to say I'm the dogmatic one. You literally argued people shouldn't be upset at the death of a 13-year old because they need to employ stoicism. Make up your mind.

> I suspect, it will ultimately lead you to be a very unlikable, dogmatic and narrow minded person.
Your social skills are impeccable, no wonder you have "too many friends to keep track of"...

> I consider my replies to have been both convincing, appropriate and level headed.
You mean before or after telling me to shove foreign objects in my urethra, against the philosophy you were touting?

> If both parties dont give either the benefit of the doubt and cut each other some slack, communication doesn't really lead anywhere.
That's not how debate works.

> I personally believe that you're the one being unfair, unreasonable and quite frankly, rather rude and uncompromising here.
Unfair? Maybe. Unreasonable? I wouldn't say it, but you're more than welcome to disagree. Rude? Well, one of us told the other to fuck off multiple times and to insert foreign objects in said person's urethra. The other noticed they may have hurt someone's feelings, and consequently wrote out a long comment intended to apologize, clarify, and bolster spirits.

I wonder which was which.

I don't know how to express this any clearer than I already have: I honestly wish you the best. I didn't say you were being cringy to offend you, I was giving friendly advice. It came off wrong - you're right about written text being a poor medium - I apolgized for that. My tone's a bit snarky, some sarcasm thrown in, and as the conversation teeters I'm being a bit abrupt. But unfair, unreasonable, and rude? Come on.

(CONT)
User avatar
#101 - thefates (09/16/2016) [-]
Crying and mourning are acceptible. Anger and the seeking of retribution against someone that did their job is not. You're allowed to feel emotion without endangering others.

What selongb was saying from the start nearly insinuated that people should be feeling some sort of anger towards the police officers. Which shouldn't be so. It's a simple fact that the child caused the whole issue.
User avatar
#103 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
They're both on opposite ends of the spectrum. krobeles thinks the proper reaction is stoicism, repression of emotion. selongb thinks the proper reaction is anger, an over-expression of emotion. Like I said, you're absolutely right; embrace these emotions, mourn your child, mourn the police officer, be strong together, and just keep living.

I had a lengthy reply to selongb higher up, saying that he's confusing grief and anger, and condemning this behavior which will only add to the suffering. >>#84
#69 - vlkafenryka (09/16/2016) [-]
You are a douchey little edge lord, i dont care how old you are or how mature you think you are, you clearly never matured past the age of 13 which is obvious because you are a fuckin 2edgy4u little shitiwt who is purposely dark antagonistic and obtuse to make yourself feel better that you dont actually feel human emotion and will probably end up killing yourself.
#36 - Oh buuhuu a child died, big deal. We've got plenty of children…  [+] (24 replies) 09/16/2016 on HE A GOOD BOY +6
User avatar
#37 - selongb (09/16/2016) [-]
Did you even fucking read my post, I agreed that the officer did the right thing given the circumstances, but this isn't about right and wrong right now.

Right now, people need to be mad, people need to scream and yell at the tops of their lungs, people need to be allowed to feel hurt. Because only once the hurt, rage, and other emotions have been expressed and released, can the healing process begin.

And you know what this "Good Boy" "Dindu" "Chimp out" shit accomplishes? It tears off any sembalance of a scab that's forming.
User avatar
#40 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
No, people dont "need to scream". Thats a childish and immature way to express oneself and deal with ones problems. What the fuck are, 5? Adults dont deal with shit by screaming and pissing themselves, for fucks sake...
Furthermore, those emotions are not at all legitimate, seeing as nothing wrong has occurred. We should never condone such childish behavior and especially not when the catalyst for it is not a legitimate one. The wound only exists in your imagination. Stop acting like a child. Even if the would were real, you should still like an adult about it.

Seriously. I am appalled by the fact that you would even attempt to make such an argument. It is astonishing how little people these days understand of stoicism.
User avatar
#43 - selongb (09/16/2016) [-]
Are... are you actually fucking autistic?

> those emotions are not at all legitimate, seeing as nothing wrong has occurred.

Feelings are not rational and there for can not be justified or unjustified by an examination of right and wrong. I find it inconceivable that someone who is at least old enough to type as you have, is unaware of this fact. Tell me, have you never been "unjustly" angry, or otherwise felt an emotion with no rational cause? If so then please make your way to Yale Medical, as you are an extremely unique subject, and it would be such a waste for academic not to study you.

> No, people dont "need to scream"

Yes, yes they do. the expression of ones ill feelings allows one to face and eventually move past them. perhaps I should speak this in a different media, as you clearly can't understand the argument set in print.
Sometimes I Guess There Just Arent Enough Rocks
This is the great failure of stoicism, internalization of volatile emotions will always lead to an emotional break. At some critical point, you will break, and like the flood waters of a collapsing damn, so too shall your repressed emotions flood out. And mark my words, it is just as destructive as the aforementioned flood.
User avatar
#45 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
You're correct. Feelings are not rational and for this very reason, it isn't rational to act on them, at least not in such a strong manner as you suggest.
I have felt unjustified emotions. I was usually drunk, in love or some other compromised mental state. I doubt that these people either of those things, unless you of course consider extreme stupidity to a perpetually compromised mental state...

You can face and move past your emotions without screaming. Again I ask, how old are you? By the sound of things, I'de guess very young or very inexperienced. 14, perhaps?
This is how functional adults deal with their problems. Not by screaming, not by throwing a tantrum, not by crying. They deal with their problems by calmly analyzing the situation and coming to the best possible solution of whatever problem they face. Throwing a childish temper tantrum over somebody you've never met, is hardly the best possible solution to any problem.

I am sincerely curious of how old you are. The views you express are very common amongst somewhat younger, less educated and inexperienced people. So then. How old are you?
User avatar
#46 - selongb (09/16/2016) [-]
How dark your existence dear krobeles, that you count love as a compromised mental state. Love, such an integral facet of the human experience.

But I digress, Since we agree that feelings are not rational, I will reconstruct my point from there to try and convay my thoughts on the matter properly to you.

I also agree that feelings should not be acted upon, when in pursuit of solution. So it should stand that before you attempt to find solutions to a problem, you should first dispel emotion clouding your judgement?

If this is so, and I am sure that it is, then we need to know, how best we dispel emotion? I have posited that, open expression of emotion is the best and quickest way to deal with ones emotional state.

Then, and only after emotions have been handled is one able to calmly and clearly analyze the situation at hand.

As for my age, I am 21, in my senior year of University, studying Biotechnology. I also am rereading "The Last Days of Socrates" for a class, so forgive my verbosity and structure, it rubs off on you really fucking quick.

And please, feel free to reciprocate my gesture and enlighten me to your age.
User avatar
#48 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
Its not that my existence is dark, I just face reality. Its not that love isn't nice, but theres simply no getting around it. When in love, you do not think like a rational human being with regards to your object of affection. It is thusly, a compromised mental state. That doesn't invalidate it, its just description of it. The rainbow or the northern lights are no less pretty, just because I understand what causes them and how they work.

You really believe that that emotional outburst wont engender an emotional response from other people? Then those people respond emotionally just as you did, and you in turn suffer an emotional response to their reaction to your initial outburst. Its just like a run-away nuclear reaction. Thats where we get angry mobs from, as we've seen in these cases before. In theory, your approach might work, but in practice it certainly does not. We have empirical evidence of this.

I'm 23 in the first year of my masters. Recently finished my bachelors thesis in physics with a (technically) joint specialty in Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics.
User avatar
#50 - selongb (09/16/2016) [-]
>Then those people respond emotionally just as you did, and you in turn suffer an emotional response to their reaction to your initial outburst. Its just like a run-away nuclear reaction.

But do you realize what you just described? It is conversation, all be it an extremely messy one. I will readily confess that my method for emotional dispersion is far from perfect, however, I would suggest that it is a far better method than the stoicism that you seem to be espousing.

I bring you back to the damn, it is bound to burst at some point, and when it does, can you not say that there will be a reaction from the opposing side that will match it in some way? If it must be so for my system then so should it be for yours. Then what is better, to bear the brunt of light flooding now and then, or to store all emotional tension up, ever under the threat of a tsunami?
User avatar
#51 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
I dont agree that it necessarily has to burst. You dont need a vocal outlet to work through your problems. You can relegate that to an internal process.
If you make it the norm, that any degree of emotional outbursting is acceptable under these circumstances, you're going to incentivised people to deploy a higher degree of Pathos in their arguments, because you've normalized emotion as a reasonable approach to problems. This in turn, will lead to demagoguery and preachers being even more influential than they already are and ultimately, logic and reason will be drowned out in a sea of emotion and Pathos.
You see, emotion comes more naturally to humans than logic and reason, which ensures that logic and reason can never be a totalitarian system. Try as we might, we can never be 100% logical. Logic and reason is something that must be cultivated through years of hard work and effort. Emotion on the other hand, is something we're all keenly in touch with from the moment we're born. We can never rid ourselves entirely of emotion, but we can indeed rid ourselves entirely of logic.
That is why my system will never become totalitarian, but your system almost inevitably will. It is just a matter of time.

This is why I propose a system of stoicism. I agree, that if stoicism is practiced incorrectly, then yes, it might lead to a "tsunami" as you say. However, I think we should incentivise people to constantly better themselves and rise above their base urges. To learn to practice and understand logic, reason and stoicism, to the point where this "tsunami" wont occur due to peoples incorrect practice of stoicism.
In essence, I think my approach is more liberal and respectful of peoples agency than yours. I think your approach - unintentionally, I do think - assumes that people are unable to master themselves and practice their own intellectual agency.
User avatar
#93 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Holy fuck, this is some /r/iamverysmart shit.

Emotions rule every facet of our existence. Being an "adult" isn't this intellectual battle of stoicism and logic like children believe, it's growing into those emotions and embracing your humanity. You couldn't be more wrong than:

> This is how functional adults deal with their problems. Not by screaming, not by throwing a tantrum, not by crying. They deal with their problems by calmly analyzing the situation and coming to the best possible solution of whatever problem they face.

Sure, when it's about minor shit like the barista not getting your coffee right, that's true. But that's not because you toss emotions out the window for rationality, it's because you're better in-sync with them; as a kid, it's hard to tell the difference between "slightly annoyed" and "fuck the world". But as an adult, you realize that you're feeling a tiny bit of disappointment, which maybe causes a little bit of annoyance. You move on, tell a joke, try to appreciate what you did get or kindly ask for the right thing, because it's no big deal. It wasn't a logical thought process deciding it wasn't a big deal, it's just how you felt.

And when you enter "my 13-year old child is dead" territory, being stoic is psychopathic. They will never forget that day, that phone-call, they're experiencing what truly may be the worst days of their lives. They should bawl their eyes out with their friends and families, they should mourn the loss of their son. And extend that mourning to the police officer who will live with the blood of a child on his hands. That's what it is to be an adult.

And on the other spectrum is selongb, who hasn't matured into his emotions enough to feel the difference between grief and anger.
User avatar
#107 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood what stoicism means. Dont feel bad about that. There seems to a lot of misconceptions on this subject. Stoicism isn't about repression, its about not letting your emotions cloud your logical faculties. You still feel anger, love or whatever, but you distance yourself enough from emotions to make reasonable choices in spite of those. You still deal with shit, you just dont express your emotions needlessly and you dont let it cloud your judgement. That is stoicism.

You're correct in your assessment, that being ruled by ones emotions are the basic response of humans. Indeed, most living things respond with emotions, it is simply the basic response of our biology. However, I posit that we're intelligent and evolved enough to rise above our basic instincts and address our issues in a manner apart from our basic instincts. If you feel like you're too basic to accomplish this, then I must say, I deeply pity you.

I didn't say that the parents themselves weren't allowed to show any emotional response to this. That is only understandable. I was referring to everyone else. Curiously, the people who usually act the calmest during these kinds of events, are the people most directly impacted by it. Usually, the people who piss themselves crying and moaning, rioting and looting, are barely even related to the people concerned.

Oh, and by the way. I am fucking smart. Did you miss the part where I outlined that I am a physicist with a (technically) joint specialty in Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics? I think I have earned the right to consider myself pretty smart.
User avatar
#117 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
The cringe man, you're making it really hard not to dislike you. Like that spoiler... wow. Talk like a human, nobody likes a Sheldon. I honestly say that with the best intentions.

I understand stoicism, "what need is there to weep over parts of life, the whole of it calls for tears.", "expect the worst and you can't be sad", "when life gives you lemons...", etc. But it's merely a tool and it's unhealthy to over-demonstrate, lest you fall into the territory of cynicism.

Understand the vast plethora of emotions, the vast range of responses. Stoicism is great for letting bygones be bygones and making lemonade, but it isn't an appropriate reaction to a great many situations and can not only stifle personal development, but greatly hamper one's ability to embrace the beauty in life.
User avatar
#120 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
So its cringeworthy to be smart and to be proud of that fact? What manner of philistine are you? Are you sincerely suggesting that I shouldn't be proud of myself for having accomplished such a great academic feat in the least time possible? I never skipped a fucking beat. Straight from one academic accomplish right into the next, with no breaks or failures on the way. If I continue this pattern, I'll be a bonafide scientist by the time I'm 25. How many people can claim that? Few. Very very few. And you're telling me that thats nothing to be proud of? Fuck off.

And this is just my academic/intellectual accomplishments. I've worked through all manner of psychological shit in my time, going from a weird, fat, quasi-autistic shut-in to a cool, confident, slim, social motherfucker with too many friends to keep track of!
I've climbed mountains both academically, psychologically, socially and internally. The only thing I'm missing is to climb a literal mountain and I can honestly say that there isn't a mountain imaginable that I haven't climbed. I fucking love myself for that. I've proven time and again, that there isn't a thing in this world that I cant do, if I set my mind to it.
And then, after all of that, you sincerely say to me, that my pride in my own accomplishments is cringeworthy? To love and respect oneself is cringeworthy? To have confidence in ones abilities and self-worth, is cringeworthy? Fuck off.

If it sounds like I'm reacting a bit strongly to this, then yes. I am. I am reacting strongly to this, because the view you expose, this perverse notion that confidence and a strident personality is somehow "cringeworthy" or unacceptable, is a cancer on the collective zeitgeist. This sinister, idiotic, philistine-worshiping notion is what prevents people from doing anything of note with their lives. If everyone shared in your disgusting view, nobody would do anything. They would just sit around, feeling bashful towards everyone else, for fear that anyone might conceivably think that they thought themselves better than anyone else!
What a dark and sinister hell that would be...

So you can take your notions of "cringe" and shove them up your enlarged urethra. If you have an issue with how I conduct myself, please dont hesitate to say so, but try to shame me for my confidence and sense of self-worth and I'll have words to you.
User avatar
#130 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
I do feel bad I upset you, though; it wasn't my intention. A bit of friendly criticism and I'll leave it on a high note.

Ttalking about how smart / cool / valuable one's self is, isn't becoming to anyone else. It's pretty easily understood that it makes others feel that you're arrogant, better than them, and sometimes shows that you don't actually have faith in those aspects of your life. The room gets awkward when that guy walks in.

And even worse, you're projecting into the void of the internet. None of us know you to verify it, your life is invisible to us. So when you talk about all these things, that cringe really shines through. Meanwhile, someone like Notch can rag onto some asshole online, bringing up his successes, and have the whole community think he's a fucking fireman. Because we directly know those successes. He's absolutely not projecting, he's not acting better than people for any reason that to tell someone off, and he's on the higher ground morally. Contextually, it becomes appropriate. And context is always king.

It's also fairly easy to tell when people are speaking naturally or trying to force out "smart speak".

And, honestly, you're not bragging about anything special. School is tough, but a 4 year degree is often up by the time someone is 23. Sometimes less from fast-track classes or early college. Grad school takes another 2 years. So becoming a bonafide scientist at 25 is pretty much the norm. Having friends? Shit, most of us have a few. And as you get older it becomes quality over quantity. We all had a lot of "friends" in high school, but as an adult it's common to just have a few intimate friends. You're skinny? Well... good for not being a fat slob?

But none of that means anything. Nothing I say should mean anything.

Everyone struggles to grow up, everyone struggles to deal with life. I dropped out of school for depression for a year. I still fight with it some nights. I've been blessed with great things, weighed with heavy burdens, walked down my own path of life and still got plenty more to go. It's okay to admit when you're lost, broken, or confused. Cry, talk to someone, whatever you need to do to let it out. Stoicism doesn't work to solve the real burning questions every single one of us needs answered. You can't repress emotion with logic.

Learn to love yourself for who you are, learn to be proud of any mountain that you climb - even if it's an ant hill. That doesn't mean accepting being fat or lazy, it just means loving yourself enough to change it and loving yourself to recognize your accomplishments. If you really are becoming a physicist soon, FUCK YEAH! Be fucking proud of it! Some fuck-boi on the internet says that's gay? Who gives a shit, you're a stoic, scientific bad-ass. You overcame social anxiety? Shit man, that's dope as fuck. Worked out and got healthy? Fuck, you deserve a beer. If people demean those accomplishments, it's just projection, ignore it and move on. If they have valid criticism, embrace it so that you can become a better person!

But... at the same time... don't be that guy I mentioned earlier. Like all things in life, it's about balance. Pride is good until it becomes hubris. Efficiency is nice until it becomes laziness. Optimism is good until it becomes naivety. And pessimism is healthy up until cynicism.

But what do I know, I'm just a stupid fucking dog. Don't listen to me. Woof woof.
#121 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Everyone on the internet is a dog. And you are, most definitely, not a stoic.
User avatar
#122 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
I shall reiterate the point I made previously: It is astonishing how little people these days understand of stoicism.

You seem to have confused stoicism with cynicism and/or nihilism.
If you dont think I'm particularly stoic, thats fine, but if you dont plan to somehow argue that point, then stating it is pointless and stupid.

Also, what in the world do you mean by "Everyone on the internet is a dog"? If you wish to have a conversation, a good first step is to stop talking in riddles...
#124 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Someone on the internet makes a slight comment about how your flaunting of your "intelligence" is off-putting and cringy... and you explode in a 407 word essay. Meanwhile, Seneca was forced to kill himself in a bathroom and chose those famous last words.

Instead of being stoic, you chose to lash out. You promoted your ascension from emotion in this thread, yet the moment someone causes you to - unintentionally might I add - question your own self worth, you are unable to control your own emotions. You can't simply brush it off, maintain your own faith in yourself, be stoic in your thoughts and conclude nothing good will come from lashing out. That reply is the very antithesis of stoicism.

The fact I have to explain this, the fact that you could not make that basic inference, be ashamed, and move on, is the saddest part.

And it's not a hard riddle, nor the first time it's been used. It's based on an old comic "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog". You're talking about how successful you are. Scientist, confident, sexy, so many friends! But to the internet... you're just words. Not a soul here will believe the things you say about yourself without evidence. On the internet, everyone is a dog.
User avatar
#129 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
Oh, and I suppose you can clearly see that I am red-hot with anger? I suppose, that you can remotely view my location and divine that I am indeed very very angry?
I am not, in fact, angry. I am not even particularly perturbed. You wrote words to me on the internet and I responded my words. What else would you have me do, when I take notice of something I disapprove of? Just ignore it, in a somewhat vain attempt to prove my stoicism? To who exactly, would I prove that?
Again, you seem to have grossly misunderstood stoicism. You seem to have it confused with nihilism. I did not respond with "an essay" because you got me emotional, but because I had a strong opinion about what you wrote. There is nothing "non-stoic" about having strong opinions about things. I merely took your opinion to be an extension of a nasty societal trend I have been noticing, and made my argument as thoroughly as I could. You've conflated stoicism with nihilism and indifference. That is certainly not what stoicism is. This isn't the first time I inform you of your error either. Why do you insist on maintaining this faulty view of stoicism? It strikes me as rather odd.

Its true that people dont generally believe what anyone says on the internet. I had assumed - wrongly perhaps - that this anonymity meant that we offered each other the benefit of the doubt. True, you have no proof that what I say here is true, but what reason do you have to disbelieve me? What benefit do I earn from lying to you? Do you expect me to doxx myself, just to prove that what I say is true? The triviality of these kinds of conversations, means that the price of believing each other is very insignificant, so why not merely assume that the other party is telling the truth and move on, based on that assumption? What do you lose?

Oh, and by the way, I very specifically did not use the word "sexy" to describe myself. I do not consider myself sexy. On a good day, I can style myself out to be sexy, but it isn't a natural state of mine, so I dont use it.
#131 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
Jesus, man, you're going for the "I'm not angry despite being obviously angry and still writing in aggressive tone" card? It's bold, but I don't think it's going to convince anyone here. Though if it convinces you, I guess that counts for something.

> Just ignore it, in a somewhat vain attempt to prove my stoicism?

Well if you're preaching stoicism in the context of the death of a 13-year old boy and a perception of systemic racism... Yes. I absolutely would expect that from you when an internet comment indirectly, accidentally insults your intelligence.

> There is nothing "non-stoic" about having strong opinions about things.

Buddy, you're really not getting that philosophy. The guy literally looked his wife and daughter in the eyes and said, "what need is there to weep over parts of life, the whole of it calls for tears?", as he was forced to commit suicide. That is stoicism. Sure, you feel those emotions, but you don't act on them. Because by reacting to them, you merely cause further issues. Because, in the scheme of things, that emotion is nothing but a fleeting moment. And because a stoic is not surprised by anything, and thus cannot be emotionally disturbed by it. The fool cries for his loss, the stoic cries for the fool.

And, by your definition, you shouldn't have gotten riled up at all. You should have analyzed the situation and crafted a response that wasn't aggressive, that was convincing, that was appropriate and level-headed. What line of logic were you using then, when using aggressive tone has never convinced a single person in history? It doesn't fit your own definition.

You lashed out emotionally, and that is not stoic. It's as simple as that.

> I had assumed - wrongly perhaps - that this anonymity meant that we offered each other the benefit of the doubt.

Very wrongly. What line of logic even is that, "people don't believe people on the internet, so they'll give each other the benefit of the doubt that they aren't lying"? That makes no sense.

> What benefit do I earn from lying to you?

Lots of reasons. Projection of fantasy, faulty evidence for your argument, convincing yourself of your own worth, exaggerating or crafting expertise so we'll appeal to authority, just plain playing pretend / role-playing. People do stupid shit all the time for lots of reasons. Making up stories is not surprising.

> Do you expect me to doxx myself, just to prove that what I say is true?

No, which is why you can't use anecdotes for shit and appeals to authority don't work. That's why the only places worth their salt for AMAs or "expert opinions" have an unbiased third party, such as a moderator or news-caster, approve their identity.

> so why not merely assume that the other party is telling the truth and move on, based on that assumption?

Any successful line of reasoning is "zero trust". The proper line of thinking is why in God's almighty name would we assume the other party is ever telling the truth? How did we get from you talking about how smart you are to zero trust systems? This was all about you flaunting your baseless certifications around for no reason. You weren't even using them to prove anything!

> On a good day, I can style myself out to be sexy, but it isn't a natural state of mine, so I dont use it.

It never ends.
User avatar
#132 - krobeles (09/16/2016) [-]
Aggressive tone? Can you clarify? Looking over our comments, you seem to be the one who is most insulting and aggressive, frankly. I believe that I merely word my responses in as strong a tone as I feel is appropriate. This media lacks bodily language and tone, so instead, I use a bit more of a bombastic vocabulary and a few swear words for added emphasis. Y'know, using the strengths of the given media to fill in the blanks. If you've interpreted that as me being angry with you, then I think we've come off on the wrong foot here.

You seem to have a very narrow minded view of stoicism. What you describe, would make sense, if one adhered to stoicism as a form of religion or dogmatic philosophical framework. I do neither of those things. The important part of any philosophy, is to view the entirety of it, and then pick and choose whatever bits of it you find to make sense, in order to piece together your own view of things. If your end product is sufficiently close to a given set of recognized ideological ideas, you can call it by that name. That is what I'm doing. I am not a religious, and I refuse to accept the opinions of others if I cannot find the reason in them.
I rarely quote other people for much the same reason. If I do, I rarely inform other people that I am quoting someone else. People should not accept a position because that position was formulated by somebody famous. If the point doesn't make sense coming from me, then it doesn't sense coming from somebody else either.
You appear to have a very ridge view of how philosophical ideas should be applied. I dont think its a healthy view and I dont think you will find a lot of use for it. I suspect, it will ultimately lead you to be a very unlikable, dogmatic and narrow minded person.

I consider my replies to have been both convincing, appropriate and level headed. It is regrettable that you dont agree, but I cannot help that you and I think differently here. I could not hand craft my replies to suit your standards, only my own. I can elucidate to you, that your replies do not meet mine, on any of those points, so I guess we're both guilty of this. That is one of the weaknesses of this written medium. If both parties dont give either the benefit of the doubt and cut each other some slack, communication doesn't really lead anywhere.
I personally believe that you're the one being unfair, unreasonable and quite frankly, rather rude and uncompromising here. Although I suspect you probably feel the same way about me.

The reason I ask for this benefit of the doubt, is because without it, these kinds of communications have no meaning or value at all. What point is there, to a conversation wherein you doubt every single aspect of the other person? Going by your logic of extreme doubt, what assurance do you have, that I am not merely a very sophisticated Bot? What assurance do you have, that my replies are not merely randomly generated and that it just coincidentally happens to fit your replies? It is unlikely, to be sure, but not altogether impossible.
Without the benefit of the doubt, these kinds of conversations has no value and we might as well not have them. If you distrust me so extremely, why are you writing with me?

Lastly, the nature of conversation has borne has us from topic to another. I am not trying to have some kind of battle with you. I'm kind of bored, since I've decided to take this Friday night to relax, and unwind by myself in my apartment. It isn't important for me to stay on one specific topic, since this is basically just entertainment to me. If you desperately want to stay on topic and discuss how awesome I am, we can go back to that, although frankly, it isn't something I often bother to talk about.
It might sound strange to you now, but I dont actually talk very often of how great I feel. I am perfectly satisfied with having that be relegated to an internal process, of which I derive immense joy, unbeknownst to anybody else.
#134 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
(CONT)

> Although I suspect you probably feel the same way about me.
I think you recently learned about stoicism, liked the concept but didn't quite grasp true application, talked about it on the internet, got hurt when somebody accidentally insulted you, threw a fit, and now you're trying to recover. Because that's all I've read.

> What point is there, to a conversation wherein you doubt every single aspect of the other person?
I have never had a conversation with another engineer that required me to hear their credentials, how smart they are, how many friends they have. Never have I had a debate where it was pertinent to trust an anecdotal story. And never in my life have I been convinced my opinion was wrong because someone "totally promised for sure" something I could not witness was true. Otherwise, I would believe in ghosts and monsters under the bed.

Empirical measurements are absolute. Mathematics, logic, statistics cannot be denied. But almost every man will fall back on lying.

> Going by your logic of extreme doubt, what assurance do you have, that I am not merely a very sophisticated Bot?
Why would that matter? I don't know if you are, I don't care if you are. It's that simple. Your turn - please tell me why you think it's important we know how smart you are?

> Without the benefit of the doubt, these kinds of conversations has no value and we might as well not have them.
Every single one of us is going to die. The universe is going to wither away. All experiences will fade into oblivion, all knowledge lost, and all philosophy rendered null and void. Yet the value of experience is not diminished in the slightest and we still want to experience it.

You could be a bot, today could be a dream, my life could be a simulation, but that would take nothing away from how real it is right now, in this moment. The value doesn't come from finality. And yet you call me narrow-minded.

> I'm kind of bored, since I've decided to take this Friday night to relax, and unwind by myself in my apartment.
Sounds like a nice time, man. I'll have a beer and a smoke later tonight with the wife as well - it's her birthday tomorrow. I'll be sure to tip it in hopes you have a good night!

> If you desperately want to stay on topic and discuss how awesome I am, we can go back to that, although frankly, it isn't something I often bother to talk about.
I hope that's satire.

> It might sound strange to you now, but I dont actually talk very often of how great I feel. I am perfectly satisfied with having that be relegated to an internal process, of which I derive immense joy, unbeknownst to anybody else.
That's not strange at all. Most well-functioning, fully matured adults are like that... Happy. And if that's true, I couldn't be more happy for and proud of you. Cheers, mate.
#133 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
> So you can take your notions of "cringe" and shove them up your enlarged urethra.
What a happy boy you are.

> You seem to have a very narrow minded view of stoicism.
The actual definition? What the Hell - One minute you're telling people to apply stoicism to the death of children, but when you lash out it's all about cherry picking?

> The important part of any philosophy, is to view the entirety of it, and then pick and choose whatever bits of it you find to make sense,
I have been saying this the whole time.

> If your end product is sufficiently close to a given set of recognized ideological ideas, you can call it by that name
Absolutely not.

> I am not a religious
Philosophy is not religion, nor it is a dogma, stop using those words. It's insulting to the people who derived these schools of thought.

> I refuse to accept the opinions of others if I cannot find the reason in them.
How narrow-minded.

> I rarely quote other people for much the same reason.
W...What? Quoting people isn't an appeal to authority. Seriously? Do you honestly think like this?

> If I do, I rarely inform other people that I am quoting someone else.
That's called plagiarism. It's generally considered a dick move. Though I totally believe you on this one, you're stealing my entire argument.

> You appear to have a very ridge view of how philosophical ideas should be applied.
You aren't very good at listening, since you're just repeating what I've already said, passing it off for yourself, then trying to say I'm the dogmatic one. You literally argued people shouldn't be upset at the death of a 13-year old because they need to employ stoicism. Make up your mind.

> I suspect, it will ultimately lead you to be a very unlikable, dogmatic and narrow minded person.
Your social skills are impeccable, no wonder you have "too many friends to keep track of"...

> I consider my replies to have been both convincing, appropriate and level headed.
You mean before or after telling me to shove foreign objects in my urethra, against the philosophy you were touting?

> If both parties dont give either the benefit of the doubt and cut each other some slack, communication doesn't really lead anywhere.
That's not how debate works.

> I personally believe that you're the one being unfair, unreasonable and quite frankly, rather rude and uncompromising here.
Unfair? Maybe. Unreasonable? I wouldn't say it, but you're more than welcome to disagree. Rude? Well, one of us told the other to fuck off multiple times and to insert foreign objects in said person's urethra. The other noticed they may have hurt someone's feelings, and consequently wrote out a long comment intended to apologize, clarify, and bolster spirits.

I wonder which was which.

I don't know how to express this any clearer than I already have: I honestly wish you the best. I didn't say you were being cringy to offend you, I was giving friendly advice. It came off wrong - you're right about written text being a poor medium - I apolgized for that. My tone's a bit snarky, some sarcasm thrown in, and as the conversation teeters I'm being a bit abrupt. But unfair, unreasonable, and rude? Come on.

(CONT)
User avatar
#101 - thefates (09/16/2016) [-]
Crying and mourning are acceptible. Anger and the seeking of retribution against someone that did their job is not. You're allowed to feel emotion without endangering others.

What selongb was saying from the start nearly insinuated that people should be feeling some sort of anger towards the police officers. Which shouldn't be so. It's a simple fact that the child caused the whole issue.
User avatar
#103 - Fgner (09/16/2016) [-]
They're both on opposite ends of the spectrum. krobeles thinks the proper reaction is stoicism, repression of emotion. selongb thinks the proper reaction is anger, an over-expression of emotion. Like I said, you're absolutely right; embrace these emotions, mourn your child, mourn the police officer, be strong together, and just keep living.

I had a lengthy reply to selongb higher up, saying that he's confusing grief and anger, and condemning this behavior which will only add to the suffering. >>#84
#69 - vlkafenryka (09/16/2016) [-]
You are a douchey little edge lord, i dont care how old you are or how mature you think you are, you clearly never matured past the age of 13 which is obvious because you are a fuckin 2edgy4u little shitiwt who is purposely dark antagonistic and obtuse to make yourself feel better that you dont actually feel human emotion and will probably end up killing yourself.
#133 - I try never to block people. I consider myself a scientist of …  [+] (1 reply) 09/15/2016 on Trumper Comp46 -payforplay... 0
#135 - MuahahaOfLore (09/15/2016) [-]
I'm highly educated myself with a legal background;
from my perspective I like discourse, but at some point you need to be held in contempt.

If you have followed my comps you may notice that people disagree with trump all the time, I try to follow your view point of allowing everything to work itself out, but some users don't want to have a conversation.
I dont block many, 4 on that block list were that same person.
#123 - As I outlined below, "bigoted" is just the lefts ver…  [+] (6 replies) 09/15/2016 on Trumper Comp46 -payforplay... +1
#129 - MuahahaOfLore (09/15/2016) [-]
I keep blocking this fucker.
I dont block people who hate trump, just people like him that spam.
User avatar
#131 - MuahahaOfLore (09/15/2016) [-]
>>#123,
He just made another. *sigh
He's really annoying.

Look at the new comments on this content its a warzone of blocks and deletions
User avatar
#133 - krobeles (09/15/2016) [-]
I try never to block people. I consider myself a scientist of sorts, and whats a scientists job but to inform the less brilliant of their faulty logic and to solve their problems in an intellectual manner? If I started blocking people, that would be counter to that goal and I would lose a great deal of the validity of calling myself a scientist.

Before you jump on me with "hurr, neckbeard! 'Enlightned' faggot!", I'm actually a university educated physicist. I have a certain degree of validity to calling myself a scientist.
#135 - MuahahaOfLore (09/15/2016) [-]
I'm highly educated myself with a legal background;
from my perspective I like discourse, but at some point you need to be held in contempt.

If you have followed my comps you may notice that people disagree with trump all the time, I try to follow your view point of allowing everything to work itself out, but some users don't want to have a conversation.
I dont block many, 4 on that block list were that same person.
#127 - itsmeagainop (09/15/2016) [-]
we havent proved it? look at the comments for fucks sake. these assholes want to paint blm as worse than the KKK. these assholes want to paint all muslims as dirty terrorists. look at the posts that make the front page on the daily and the high rated comments and tell me these assholes arent bigots. this is /pol/ part 2.
User avatar
#132 - krobeles (09/15/2016) [-]
Are you saying that BLM hasn't performed acts of racially incentivised violence? Are you saying that haven't killed people? They might not be worse than the KKK, but they're about equally as bad, just the other end of the coin. The only major difference is, that BLM is a newer movement, with less time under its belt to rake up as heinous a score as KKK.
Are you saying that Islam isn't the leading cause for terror in the world today? Are you saying that the Quran doesn't have heinous ideas in it? They surely aren't all terrorists, but the culture of Islam itself is a bad thing. Islam as a whole, is a strictly anti-western cultural force.

Your major fault, is that you're looking for bigotry. You want to find it.
Try to think for a moment. Do you think these events could be explain with something other than bigotry and racism? What alternative is there? If you can accomplish this thought exercise, I think it would do you good.
#112 - "bigoted site"? If this is such a "bigoted"…  [+] (11 replies) 09/15/2016 on Trumper Comp46 -payforplay... +2
#119 - itsmeopufag (09/15/2016) [-]
this is a bigoted site and you're delusional for thinking it isnt.
User avatar
#123 - krobeles (09/15/2016) [-]
As I outlined below, "bigoted" is just the lefts version of "lipcuck". All it means, is that the person saying it is a biased person, not to be taken terribly seriously.
What do you hope to achieve by calling people bigoted, anyway? Do you think it'll change their minds? Do you think they'll come around if you just shame and insult them enough?
This site might well be bigoted, but neither you nor fables has proved that. You've just assumed it to be true, and used shaming language in an effort to enforce that notion. If you want to have a discussion about this sites issues thats perfectly fine, but dont use that senseless buzzwords. It only makes you both look pretty stupid and biased as all hell.
#129 - MuahahaOfLore (09/15/2016) [-]
I keep blocking this fucker.
I dont block people who hate trump, just people like him that spam.
User avatar
#131 - MuahahaOfLore (09/15/2016) [-]
>>#123,
He just made another. *sigh
He's really annoying.

Look at the new comments on this content its a warzone of blocks and deletions
User avatar
#133 - krobeles (09/15/2016) [-]
I try never to block people. I consider myself a scientist of sorts, and whats a scientists job but to inform the less brilliant of their faulty logic and to solve their problems in an intellectual manner? If I started blocking people, that would be counter to that goal and I would lose a great deal of the validity of calling myself a scientist.

Before you jump on me with "hurr, neckbeard! 'Enlightned' faggot!", I'm actually a university educated physicist. I have a certain degree of validity to calling myself a scientist.
#135 - MuahahaOfLore (09/15/2016) [-]
I'm highly educated myself with a legal background;
from my perspective I like discourse, but at some point you need to be held in contempt.

If you have followed my comps you may notice that people disagree with trump all the time, I try to follow your view point of allowing everything to work itself out, but some users don't want to have a conversation.
I dont block many, 4 on that block list were that same person.
#127 - itsmeagainop (09/15/2016) [-]
we havent proved it? look at the comments for fucks sake. these assholes want to paint blm as worse than the KKK. these assholes want to paint all muslims as dirty terrorists. look at the posts that make the front page on the daily and the high rated comments and tell me these assholes arent bigots. this is /pol/ part 2.
User avatar
#132 - krobeles (09/15/2016) [-]
Are you saying that BLM hasn't performed acts of racially incentivised violence? Are you saying that haven't killed people? They might not be worse than the KKK, but they're about equally as bad, just the other end of the coin. The only major difference is, that BLM is a newer movement, with less time under its belt to rake up as heinous a score as KKK.
Are you saying that Islam isn't the leading cause for terror in the world today? Are you saying that the Quran doesn't have heinous ideas in it? They surely aren't all terrorists, but the culture of Islam itself is a bad thing. Islam as a whole, is a strictly anti-western cultural force.

Your major fault, is that you're looking for bigotry. You want to find it.
Try to think for a moment. Do you think these events could be explain with something other than bigotry and racism? What alternative is there? If you can accomplish this thought exercise, I think it would do you good.
User avatar
#114 - fables (09/15/2016) [-]
and every was an exaggeration. before you attack me on that.
I'd say 90% of the people are like you. angry retards who can't be reasoned with once your god trump has been insulted.
User avatar
#113 - fables (09/15/2016) [-]
by discussion do you mean I say I don't like trump, so you call me a libcuck libtard nigger faggot and tell me hillary's a murderer and tell me everything else she's done
before even knowing I don't like her either?

because that's every "discussion" I've had on fj. if I belong on tumblr, fucks like you belong in a goddamn nut house.

anyway, I'm here because there are SOME people I CAN have a discussion with and not be called a cuck 10x in one sentence.
User avatar
#116 - krobeles (09/15/2016) [-]
DId I call you a cuck? No. You're projecting other peoples values and opinions onto me right now. You should stop that.
I hazarded the guess that you were unwilling to have a discussion because you used the word "Islamophobic" in serious manner. Islamophobia is a buzzword designed to shut down debate, by demonizing the opposition. Exactly the same as "cuck" is to the alt right dudes. You're no better than the "Cuckcuckcuck!!" people, you seem to have so much against. You did the exact same thing, just from the other end of the political spectrum.
Thats why I made the conclusion that you aren't willing to have a discussion. You told me so yourself.

Frankly, I dont much care about Trump or Hilary. I'm a Dane. The outcome of that election will effect me very little and I have no say in it either way.