Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


Core Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About scorpiomover

  • Rank
    Core Member


  • MBTI
  • Enneagram
  • Global 5/SLOAN
  • Astrology Sign


  • Biography
    After watching "As good as it gets", my friends said I was Melvin.
  • Location
    Londinium, UK.
  • Occupation
  • Interests
    Computers, maths, epistemology, logic, Yoga, martial arts, nutrition.
  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    Remember, you're a Womble.
  1. You do know that Alberta is the Texas of Canada?
  2. What actually happened in the UK, was that some companies started putting how much salt a product contained. Other companies started offering low-salt versions. Some companies slightly reduced the amount of salt, but not so much that it affected the taste or the shelf-life of the products. Companies aren't going to willingly do anything to cut profits. The government never brought in legislation that required mandatory low salt levels, probably because the companies hired people to pressure and persuade the government not to. So they didn't have to cut things that drastically. Many people, who wanted to eat more healthily anyway, chose the low salt foods, which is why the average salt intake reduced at all. Looking attractive and living longer is "in" in a big way. So healthy eating is a big fad here now, as is moisturising, joining a gym and working out, having a personal trainer, getting a spray-tan, and getting your teeth whitened. If you want salty foods here, there's plenty to choose from. There's still far more salty foods than unsalted. There's just more options for things like unsalted organic butter. But organic fruit & veg costs more than double regular. So you're paying for it. ...... added to this post 17 minutes later: I got into history in my late 20s. The "spice road" referred to the fact that there was a massive demand in Europe for spices, particularly during the Medieval Age: pepper, mint, turmeric, nutmeg, saffron, you name it. At one point, a handful of peppercorns could buy you a big house in the best parts of London. A lot of wars and invasions were actually fought over spices. The British and the Dutch fought over control of the Banda Islands because that was where nutmeg grew, and for a long time, it wouldn't grow anywhere else. Part of the reason was to make food taste better. But a large part of it was because it was believed that spices made you healthier. Because of things like the Black Death, spice meant life. So basically, if you were European, and definitely if you were British, you used spices, as many as you could get your hands on and could afford. Using a lot of spices was even seen as a sign of wealth and power. Of course, that was for over 1,000 years before McDonald's, when everyone used to cook and had to spice their foods themselves. Now, millions just go to McDonald's and places like that, or buy a ready-cooked meal. The companies that make them spend hundreds of millions getting it to taste a certain way, and do everything they can to make sure that the taste is exactly the same, from London to Lahore and from Taunton to Timbuktu. So people who eat junk food and takeout a lot probably get used to the food coming with its own taste, and having exactly the same taste every time. So there's no need or point for them to use spices or seasoning.
  3. Of course you didn't. A masochist is someone who likes to have pain. If having less money is painful, as it is to most people, then someone who freely gives their money away is someone who likes to have pain of the form of having less money, which makes them a financial masochist. A sadist is someone who likes to inflict pain. Having less money is painful. So a financial sadist is someone who likes to inflict the financial pain on others by taking their money. So if the golden rule validates that it justifies sadism on non-masochists, then the same logic justifies financial sadism (taking money away from others) on non-financial-masochists (people who don't enjoy having their money taken away). Theft is taking people's money and property away without their consent and permission, yes? Gift contracts/charity is when others take away your money and property with your consent and permission, like how a masochist gets inflicted with pain with his consent and permission. Theft is when others take away your money and property without your consent or permission, like how a non-masochist gets inflicted with pain without his consent or permission. You're claiming that the masochist "receives", and the non-masochist doesn't. But the only difference between the masochist and the non-masochist is that the masochist wants the pain to happen to him, but the non-masochist doesn't. So then you are defining that one of the conditions of "receiving" requires that the person wants the thing to happen. You also define that the masochist gets a "service" and the non-masochist gets an "assault". But the only difference between the masochist and the non-masochist is that the masochist wants the pain to happen to him, but the non-masochist doesn't. So then you are defining that if one wants the thing to happen, it's a "service", and if he doesn't, then it's an "assault". You are defining that sadistic acts and those who have experienced sadistic acts are in 2 completely separate categories and cannot be comparable. So if you want to have pain inflicted on you, that a "service", and you are a "recipient". You cannot say that if a "service" to a "recipient" is justified, that an "assault" to a "recipient" is justified, or that a "service" to a "victim" is justified, and certainly not that an "assault" to a "victim" is justified, because the two acts are 2 completely incomparable things. and the two persons are 2 completely incomparable categories of people. What applies to one can never, ever be reasoned to automatically apply to the other. Then look what happens when we apply that to your argument: That might be. But that can only speak about a service to a recipient. It can never make any claims about an assault on a victim, i.e. anything about a non-masochist. Possibly. But even so, that can only justify a service to a recipient. It can never justify sadism performed on anyone other than a masochist, because sadism performed on a non-masochist would be an assault on a victim, which is completely different. This is correct. That implication came from you. The objects of sadism do not have to be masochists. But since sadism is justified if it is a service to a recipient, if the objects of your sadism are non-masochists, then that would be an assault on a victim, which is a completely different thing entirely, and completely incomparable to when the object of a sadistic act is masochist, which is a service to a recipient. So you've already qualified that one cannot apply to the other. What you are trying to argue is if that a particular type of action that is a service to a recipient is justified, then an assault on a victim that is the same type of action, would ALSO be justified. Yet you seem to be claiming that you think that logic should NOT hold, because they are 2 completely different types of things that are incomparable. In short, your logic seems to be this: The golden rule says if I like something being done to me, then I should do the same thing to others. So if I like being given pain, then the golden rule seems to say that I should also be able to give others pain, even if they don't want it, even if they are not the same at all. But that's wrong, because they're not the same at all. So the golden rule must be wrong. One tiny flaw with your argument. Your entire argument rests on the premise that "do unto others as you would want done unto you", would apply even if they are not the same at all, when by definition, the very words specify "as you would want done to you", requires that they have to be the same. According to the golden rule, you can only justify sadism as an assault, when you would want sadism as an assault done to you. If you would want sadism as a service done to you, that only justifies that you can do sadism as a service to others. So you are claiming that they are the same category when it comes to the golden rule. But when it comes to morality, you claim they are different categories. You are committing the fallacy of: Equivocation ...... added to this post 45 minutes later: On the contrary. The golden rule is the basis of libertarian theory. The law of non-interference can be expressed as "You don't interfere with my life and I don't interfere with your life." It can be summed up even more succinctly as "You don't f**k with me. I won't f**k with you." What that means, is that if you're not drowning, then I should not try to drown you. But if you're already drowning, then me trying to save you would be interfering with your life. If you are drowning and you grab at me so I'll be forced to pull you out or drown with you, then you're interfering with me and trying to f**k with me. So according to the rule of non-interference, I have every right to push your head under and hold your head down until you are good and dead. Even if it's not your fault that you're drowning, if you're grabbing at me, you're still interfering with my life and f**king with me. Even if you're grabbing at me because otherwise you'll die and you have no other choice, if you're grabbing at me, you're still interfering with my life and f**king with me. Even if you have just as much right to be alive as I do, if you're grabbing at me, you're still interfering with my life and f**king with me. But if you're drowning, and I just walk on, then that's not interfering, because I'm not changing anything. So if we're both born in the same country, and the law in the country is that everyone pays taxes, then you don't get the right to start interfering with my life and the way my country does things. The fact that you've got just as much right to be there as I do, doesn't change that you're still trying to interfere with my life, because you're trying to change things, and that means you're interfering. It doesn't matter if it's not your fault. It doesn't matter if you were born there and didn't get to choose. It doesn't matter if you have the same rights as I do. The only things that matter are if you are trying to change the status quo, and if I think that might cause me a problem. If both of those are true, then you're interfering with my life and trying to f**k with me, and then you're fair game to whatever nasty and evil stuff I can dream up and do to you, and there's no maximum punishment or statute of limitations on it either. Libertarians want the rules changed. They want legislation to be repealed and taxes to be cut. Those are 2 changes to the status quo. They are trying to interfere. They've violated the pact of "live and let live" of "You don't f**k with me. I won't f**k with you." So the rule of non-interference says that it's open season on libertarians. Non-libertarians, get your assault rifles out and start using libertarians for target practice. But the Golden Rule says that if I thought taxes were theft, and that the gov was stealing from me, and I thought regulations were unfair impositions, then I would at least want others to cut me some slack, not try to kill me, and hear me out. I'd also want them to try to find a compromise that we can both live with. So, the Golden Rule says that I should give that to libertarians. So the only reason why you're not up against a firing squad right now is because of the Golden Rule.
  4. From the FSA website: Timeline of salt reduction progress The FSA was supposed to reduce salt targets down to 6g a day, over 5 years. The deadline was 2010. In 2007, it was 9g. It 2008, it was 8.6g. At that rate, they'd make their target 12 years past the deadline. Strangely enough, two months before the end of their deadline, the whole programme was transferred to another department, before the world had a chance to say that they failed miserably. Still salt, salt, everywhere you go. But sometimes, it's sea salt. They praised the FSA's salt reduction programme, for going from 9.5g in 2003 to 8.1g in 2010. They omitted to mention that the target was to reach 6g by 2010. Like starting a marathon, giving up 1/3rd of the way through and claiming that you're a fantastic marathon runner and everyone else should run marathons like you.
  5. Then the following is also true: Some people love giving their money away. To give money away, someone has to take it. Therefore, taking people's money is OK, even if the people whose money you take, don't want to give their money away. We don't even need the Golden Rule here, because if someone gives their money away, you're not interfering by taking it. So even if you believe that the Golden Rule is wrong, you still believe that it's OK for other people to take your money and your property against your will. You are a libertarian. Since you've just validated that you believe that it's OK to steal other people's money, then ALL libertarians believe that. I think that we should make sure that the entire world knows that all libertarians believe that it's OK to steal other people's money and are 100% against protecting private property and private money.
  6. That's because it's already sitting there on the table. In some places, the salt and pepper shakers are in the middle of the table. In others, they have a range of condiments in a small square container at the side of the table. But there's (almost) always salt. Maybe there's somewhere that doesn't have salt already on the table, in a galaxy far, far away... Brits pour salt and vinegar on their chips. How much salt do you eat?
  7. Categorical imperative According to Kant, it's only moral to say that you can call people Nazis, if you're going to call everyone Nazis, including yourself.
  8. On average, people in the UK eat about 8.1g of salt (3.2g sodium) a day - over two grams more than the recommended amount of 6g, or around one teaspoon.
  9. I and my sister used to work in the same company. She'd never, ever swear. Several of my work colleagues told me in conversation, that they'd stopped swearing when she was there. I thought they felt guilty. But they said no, they actually liked it. I used to swear a lot. But people didn't like it when I did, even though they swore like troopers themselves. So I had to stop. I'm not comfortable about being touched. But I'm fine with some people touching me. They ask me first.
  10. True. But neither is being attractive, or being intelligent, or having shared interests, or having a "spark". Why treat being "nice" as if it is special? ...... added to this post 9 minutes later: If you have to worry about being offensive to a really, really, really nice guy who never says a bad thing about anyone, only sees the good in others, etc., then he's not all that nice, because he doesn't always see the good in others, because he saw something not good in you, and because he sometimes said a bad thing about someone, because he said that you were offensive. But it can be extremely uncomfortable to be around a person like that. Some people feel guilty for seeing someone so nice, and not being like that themselves. Well, yes. Someone may be shorter than you. But there are lots of short women. They may be poor. But there's lots of poor women. They may be not smart. But there's lots of not-so-smart women. They may have odd interests or be weird. But there's lots of quirky women with unusual interests. Even if a guy doesn't fit you for reasons other than his character, there's bound to be several women who would be a good fit for him. But you can't live with an a-hole for that long. Eventually, all the criticism wears you down. Their S/O feels like she'd be better off alone.
  11. I'm already living with that kind of situation. Many roads in London, and even whole areas, have a speed limit of 20mph, without a school in sight. But it's the law. If I broke it, why wouldn't everyone else? If everyone broke the law when they felt like it, then many drivers would drive at 40mph past a school. What really grinds my gears, though is lack of planning, where the results of the plan make things much worse. E.G. the smoking ban didn't allow for any enclosed or covered smoking areas. Smokers used to go to the pub, partly so that they wouldn't have to smoke at home in front of the kids. Now, they have to keep going in and out of the pub on a rainy winter's night. There's only so much they would take that, before they'd give up, and drink and smoke at home, where the kids breathe in their smoke instead. All it would have taken, was the option of a smoking room with a built-in fan to clean the air before the bar staff empty the ashtrays and sweep up before the end of the night. Have your pint. When you want a smoke, you go in the smoking room. When you're finished, you go back to your friends. We had the same set-up in Yardley's perfume factory in Basildon, which was compliant with a very high ISO standard. Not going to have perfumes stinking of smoke. No-one would buy it. ...... added to this post 18 minutes later: British dual-carriage motorways have a speed limit of 70mph. But they're built differently to highways. They're fenced, or on a steep bank, or far away from urban areas or even small towns. They're generally built in a way that means you won't wander on there by accident. There is also a hard shoulder on a motorway, which is an extra lane for people who've broken down. But you still can't walk along the hard shoulder. Too dangerous. You'd be arrested before too long. Country roads are often 60mph. But only where everyone knows and they are far from any accidental wanderers. There are also roads that are 50mph, which are normally in a built-up area. But they're fenced off. There are also much higher standards required to pass a driving test in the UK. Almost no 14-year-olds would pass such tests, even if they would be allowed. It would probably be more reasonable to raise the speed limit, if (a) roads with a higher speed limit had a 6-foot fence with a hard shoulder, and (b) driving test standards were raised significantly, at least to be able to drive on high-speed roads, as an additional optional category of the driving licence. No different than the category to drive trucks. ...... added to this post 52 minutes later: It's only a matter of time until he's picking up his kid from school, gets hit by a car moving at 40mph, and is dead. So he's got a death wish, for him and his child. Still won't make a difference, though, because he's only 1 parent out of hundreds whose kids go to that school.
  12. So he was good at figuring out the future, but wasn't that hot on figuring out the exact causes and what can be done to fix the problem long-term. Sounds like an INTJ to me. Comte was just reiterating Class theory, only with atheists that embraced science in an authoritarian fashion as the masters, and everyone else as the slaves. Also, bear in mind that Comte also thought that sociology was everything, and that mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and everything else in science were just aids to sociology. Many of Marx's peers believed in Comte's Three Stages, and really did think that if you got rid of religion, all of life's problems would magically float away and the world would become a utopia, just as many people believe that today. Hegel has always been very difficult for me to grasp. But he seems like a someone that was often misunderstood. So it's not unreasonable for Marx to have had to develop his own methods. Hegel's dialectic seems to start from the abstract, developing concepts from first principles. Marx used a historical material dialectic, studying history in terms of the material things that would be considered valid evidence in science, to develop his principles. It's much easier to work with. The drawback is that it relies on past notions, and so tends to produce results that seem radical, but are actually rooted in the past, and so tend towards traditional answers (e.g. the root of all evil is money). Yes. But Marxists tend to be idealists, rather than material dialectic realists. They hope to change the world for the better, by using solutions that people like Marx wrote about, rather than Marx's approach, which was to study everything carefully, then come up with possible solutions and then tell everyone about them so that some people might do proper scientific experiments and test them out before implementing them. He was probably about as close to a scientific economist as we're likely to get these days. ...... added to this post 57 minutes later: Jews travelled all over the world. The first time a Jew went to Haiti was in 1492. Jewish law has thousands of laws about not over-charging people. Non-religious Jews may have given up their practise of Judaism. But Jewish culture was still steeped in the principles expressed in those laws, and so were they. So they still wanted to see fairness in business. But they weren't going to follow their religion's laws and be an example to others, as they weren't religious. So instead, they tried to motivate social change.
  13. If you asking about if they are justified by the Golden Rule, I would say: DUI laws: yes. Speed limits: yes. Gay conversion therapy: no.
  14. If you're allergic to penicillin, and your doctor isn't, would you want him to give you penicillin? Of course not. You want him to consider your needs that differ from his. So if you follow the Golden Rule, you want to show the same latitude to others. You don't have a nut allergy. But many people do, and some people's kids have nut allergies. So when you have friends over for dinner, it's only fair that you ask them if any of them has a nut allergy, tell them which foods were prepared with nuts. If there are any kids there, you make sure that you know if any of them are allergic to nuts, and you make sure to lock up the peanut butter. Your girlfriend loves peanut butter. She's furious that you've locked up her favourite food for the day, and won't let her eat it. But there are kids there with a deathly nut allergy. You know that she always leaves the peanut butter out. How would she feel if she made a sandwich, left it out, and the kid with the nut allergy got at it while you weren't looking and had to be taken to the ER? You know how stuff like that upsets her for weeks. Do you let her have the peanut butter and risk almost killing a child, and having her crying her eyes every day with guilt for weeks? Or do you let her be furious at you, and take the blame for saving her from weeks of agony, when she can have all the peanut butter sandwiches she wants once the party is over and everyone goes home? Are you gay, though? Have you ever been gay? If not, then let's suppose the same situation about you. Suppose that you are heterosexual, and your dad is gay. He thinks that you're ruining your life by not enjoying sex (gay men have explicitly said that gay sex is the best, because you're not doing it for procreation, and so it is 100% for pleasure). He tells you that if he was straight, he'd want to be converted to be gay. Should he be allowed to send you to straight conversion therapy? There's a speed limit of 20mph past a school. At several times of the day, kids are popping across the road, left, right and centre. Do you really want to bomb it down at 40mph, and risk hitting and killing a kid? Could you live with murdering a small child? It's only a small inconvenience to slow down for a tiny part of your journey. It's why you have brakes on your car. Is it really so much to ask, so that you don't commit murder, spend several years in prison and destroy any chance of you continuing with your big-salary career? You're enjoying some drinks with your friends. You have several pints. You can barely walk in a straight line. Everyone else is taking a taxi home. But you're adamant that no-one should be forced to do what they don't want. You're driving home and wandering all over the road. You get close to home, where your girlfriend is crossing the road on her way into the house. You'd normally be easily able to stop in time. But you're drunk, and you run her over. Your girlfriend is dead, because you didn't want to spend the money on a taxi. You spend several years in prison. You can't get back into your former career. Can you live with all that? Is it so much to ask that you choose to enjoy your life, by driving some nights, and drinking on other nights, but not both on the same night? Isn't that what mates and taxis are for?
  15. Then we're roughly on the same page. A "balanced diet" means just that, a "balance", multiple things that each provide only part of what you need, but altogether do give you what you need. If the only vegetables your kids eat are celery, or Brussels sprouts, or just about any one vegetable, they'll only get some of the vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients that they need. I count potatoes as a vegetable as well as a carbohydrate, because they have a lot of vitamin C. But if you bake them at 200C, then the temperature will be too high for the vitamins to survive. If you boil them, then as vitamin C is water soluble, the water will absorb a lot of the vitamin C. You're actually much better off to serve the potatoes with the water they were boiled in, as a drink. Otherwise, you're just pouring vitamin C down the drain. Probably one reason why potatoes were often used in stews. But if you're not thinking about nutrition like that, and not going to drink potato-flavoured water, then yes, I'd not count them as one of your 10 fruits and veg a day. ...... added to this post 1 minute later: OK. You got me. Now you get a gold star.