• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Equinox

  • Rank
    Veteran Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign
  • Personal DNA
    Concerned Analyst


  • Biography
    I'm a stereotypical INTJ: cold, rational, and serious.
  • Occupation
    Law Student
  • Interests
    Lockpicking, modern british literature, firearms, classical music, modern music nobody's heard of
  • Gender
  1. The original map was destroyed, so in case you want to do it again, answer to the INTJf map thread, please.

  2. You're right about the second example not being fallacious. People just like throwing around "no true Scotsman" and other fallacies as shortcuts to "winning" an argument. On many occasions, both here on INTJf and in real life, I've seen people attempt to be "smart" by alleging that an argument contains a fallacy and is therefore invalid simply because the person making the accusation sees a few superficial elements of the argument that can be lumped together to maybe somehow approximate a real fallacy. It's grasping at straws and is intellectually dishonest. Likewise, people like to tear down others' accusations of fallacy by trying to poke holes in their logic. Personally, I think people need to stop arguing and start thinking. If people thought about how best to logically express their thoughts before saying something stupid, and others thought about how best to logically respond to others' positions, we wouldn't need to engage in wars over who's using a fallacy and who's not, or whether an accusation of fallacy is correct or not.
  3. Precisely. This is grade school humor we're talking about here, the type where people trick you into saying a few unrelated words in a row so that they can get you in trouble for saying a bad word made out of the phonetics present in the other words they asked you to say. I don't see why it should be treated any more seriously than something like that.
  4. But should they be considered winners? My point is not to delve too deeply into what I acknowledged as a contentious topic, only to point out that neither side necessary has to "win." Both could be considered losers for various reasons. I personally think that it doesn't matter which side is more popular, both should be held accountable for their actions.
  5. You can say that but it doesn't make it true. Sure it does! Are you saying that behavioral analysis isn't scientific? Because it definitely is. How would we even have frameworks around which to base research if psychologists didn't create models and theories through the scientific method? ...And sitting next to a doctor and talking to him isn't medicine. But nobody would deny that medicine isn't a science. You're trying to redefine things to make them convenient to your argument, but your definitions are not correct, or at least not entirely correct. Irrelevant. This is like the argument that politicians need to use drugs before they can make legitimate regulations prohibiting those drugs. You're stretching your argument too far. But are they violent by nature, or merely forced by the circumstances to address violent situations? Again, you're making sweeping generalizations without considering the So by your logic, anyone who leads, participates in, or endorses war is a psychopath? There's such a thing as justification for war, such as self-defense or the protection of others. You're speaking in absolutes or relativizing terms to suit your argument. Science is an evolving field. 500 years ago they didn't believe in heliocentrism, but science progressed to the point where geocentrism was proven wrong. Just because the DSM changes doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong. Sure, there are things they continually improve on. But the fact that there's room for improvement doesn't invalidate what's in there in terms of usefulness in diagnosing psychological disorders.
  6. ...Because they're sticking with what they've been told. But what if culture reinforced the notion that every party involved in a conflict can potentially be wrong, with no winner? Could it overcome the win/lose dichotomy?
  7. It's fine if you see morality that way, but I don't see it as a social tool; I see it as an innate human desire to achieve outcomes we consider fair, just, and equitable. If they don't have a system of morality, I would refuse to go with them, because that would mean that for all their technological superiority they would lack the one thing that makes us superior to them.
  8. My question to everyone is whether the win/lose dichotomy is the best way to look at conflicts. I think that in many situations, there should not be a clear winner or loser, but that human nature is to label one winner and one loser per argument. I can understand this, as it's easy to say "even if you're both at fault, one side is more at fault than the other." But wouldn't a better outcome result from saying "you're both at fault and therefore both of you lose"? Wouldn't that help to discourage further conflicts by showing that two wrongs don't make a right, or that it's excusable to commit bad acts so long as they're not as bad as what the other person did? Examples: The recent "why are atheists so angry" thread. I think that militant atheists are just as bad as militant Christian evangelicals. Why must we pick one loser when both are equally egregious? Israel vs. Palestine. I know this is a contentious topic, but in my opinion, the waters are so muddy that both sides are equally at fault. Why do we have to decide who's less at fault when both sides have done many things they shouldn't have? Why don't we just say they both lose and that they both forfeit all of their respective territory to the UN or something, and that any attempts to continue fighting will be met with severe punishment? In summary, I see situations like these as two squabbling children fighting over a toy that neither of them really has a right to. Why not just confiscate or break the toy so that neither of them can benefit from his wrongdoing?
  9. I don't disagree that there are many types, but explain how I have unreal expectations. I was watching a Youtube video by a guy who talks about wild edible plants, and he mentioned one particular plant that can make you itch if you don't cook it before eating it. He said "I think it may be due to a vitamin B or niacin overload, but that's just my theory, I don't know for sure"--he's a forager, not a scientist. Is his hypothesis any less valid than mine because I'm not a scientist? He used some reasonable information extrapolated it. Why is my extrapolation any different? Oh really? I know a number of people who have jobs in psychology or related fields who would vehemently disagree. But it does exist in every culture, and merely manifests itself in different ways. Your use of relativism and skepticism that basic definitions exist don't invalidate my argument. To give an example, if I said the sky was blue, you'd ask what "blue" is, and that it can be interpreted many different ways and that two people agreeing something is blue may perceive it differently, so my claim is incorrect. You're splitting hairs here. I know plenty of people who aren't. Maybe you're just basing your doubts on your own perception of the world or criticisms of humanity, but I don't see how you can definitively say that it's rare not to meet a manipulative person. And we have plenty of documentation about those people, their personalities, and the lives they led. That's because you're trying to stretch the definition too far. You're trying to make any violent action (whether justified or not), lack of emotion (whether justified or not), or expression of charm (whether superficial and intended to manipulate or genuine and socially acceptable) fall under the same scrutiny. There are fairly clear guidelines under the DSM as to what constitutes psychopathy, and Eisenhower is definitely not a psychopath. Is that so? I've never heard of that being the case. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but please provide some evidence for your claim.
  10. Maybe you should consider how it sounds taken literally before you use it. Tell me what the meaning of the word "is" is. Most people understand what "charm" means, but I'll defer to the official psychological definition, which should be discussed in the Wikipedia article or otherwise one link away from it. Maybe they're just not good at manipulation, even though it's part of their disorder...hence their possible need/desire to practice. I agree they're not meaningful, but they're self-serving relationships. Then again, the psychopath doesn't care about the quality of a relationship, only what they can get out of it. Hence the manipulation part, scheming up new ways to fool people into acting/thinking how the psychopath wants them to. Ok, so passive-aggressive. It's still manipulation, and I still think it can be practiced or learned. Psychopaths in general are pretty rare, but they do exist in the way I'm referencing. Look at many of the serial killers and/or leaders of the last few milennia of human existence.
  11. Maybe he should consider how offensive it sounds when you take it at its literal meaning and not in the "internet context." I understand it now that you've explained it, but I still don't think that excuses his behavior.

  12. It depends on what the alien society is like. If their morality (if they even have a morality) is like ours but they're better at not doing stupid things or acting selfish, then I'd go with them. If they have no conception of what most humans consider moral, I'd stay on Earth. Either way, I'd tell them to leave humanity alone, because staging a massive takeover and feigning retreat/submission after humanity united to save itself isn't an option, though I think that would be precisely what society needs these days.
  13. Hey mate, the "go home, you're drunk" statement is a common phrase all over the internet, don't take it too personal.. it just means you made a mistake and didn't realize it.. no complaints from me, just explaining the actuality of the term on the internet. take care

  14. First, that doesn't excuse your baseless accusation that I drink alcohol. Second, there is logic to my argument, which I address in the next part of my post. My theory was just a theory, nothing more. As I said, part of a psychopath's ability to be charming and manipulative is unquestionably a matter of personality and character, but I don't see why people wouldn't do whatever they could to improve those skills. Who's to say that a psychopath, driven to manipulate people as part of his or her condition, is necessarily incapable of wanting to improve their manipulative abilities? A math genius is inherently gifted, but that doesn't mean they can't practice their skills or read about mathematical concepts they're unfamiliar with to get even better. It seems reasonable to me that psychopaths, who are in many cases already good at manipulation, would go out of their way to read books and practice techniques to become even more irresistable or compelling. No, and I don't want to. I don't like horror films. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath Admittedly, there is some debate over the precise definition and qualities of psychopaths, but two of the universally recognized qualities of psychopaths are the presence of convincing but superficial charm and a penchant for manipulation. It's part of the very essence of psychopathy. If they didn't have that charm, they'd be labeled something else. I'm not a psychologist by profession, but it's been an interest of mine for many years and I have a working knowledge of the basic traits that go along with various psychological disorders.
  15. I've never so much as tasted alcohol in my life. I'm rather offended that you would insinuate such a thing. I don't see why my personal opinion (which I think is pretty reasonable) requires such an offensive answer. If you want to attack my logic, go right ahead, but don't you dare just handwave me away.