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.

rickster

Members
  • Content count

    2,974
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About rickster

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    INTJ
  • Astrology Sign
    Cancer

Converted

  • Biography
    ex NYer
  • Location
    Rural NSW, Australia
  • Occupation
    Human Sevices & Broadcast Journalism
  • Interests
    'puters, audio restoration, DIY
  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,397 profile views
  1. I knew a guy who went and lived up a mountain for two years with no human contact at all and was largely self-sufficient. I asked him if it facilitated his spiritual enlightenment but he said the only thing that happened was that he got very bored. Hell NO! Still way too many bastards I first want to see dead and buried.
  2. Eye contact etiquette changes from culture to culture and contract to contract. I should have phrased it better: some LGBT people just get it plain wrong...avoidance of appropriate eye contact, overstaying eye contact welcome - stuff like that. It's extremely subtle and unless you're aware of it you'll miss it. Sexually based? Dunno. Don't think so but maybe... (The problem with virtually all study of what we do and what we are is that it's traditionally had a covert or overt homophobic bias, which is ongoing to the point that pushback skepticism is the wisest reaction.) Haha! I always let Hollywood legend and lifelong fag hag Elizabeth Taylor have the last word on the subject: "A girl just has to realize you can't fry all the fish you'd like to!" Not that I don't get exactly what you're saying - reality bites around the time I meet another Mr Right and find out he'd just rather get clobbered in his pussy pursuits - no time even for a harmless little bromance with me LOL
  3. This pretty much sums up my take on the subject. Much better than the diatribe I was working on. I'll note that the ongoing fly in the ointment (with "morality") is due to Latin attempts to translate ethikos and what has come down to us via Old French. Certain customs or behaviors are recognized as good and others as bad, and these collectively comprise morality – arguably the summation of our value system as human beings. So a conversation about ethical and moral decision-making is important. But problems arise when the terms “ethics” or “morals” are used interchangeably. The words derive respectively from the word in Greek (ethos, ethikos) and Latin (mores, moralis), variously translated as customs, manners or social norms. In fact, however, it is possible to differentiate the Greek root of ethics from the Latin root of morality in a way that may be practically helpful. According to this understanding, “ethics” leans towards decisions based upon individual character, and the more subjective understanding of right and wrong by individuals – whereas “morals” emphasizes the widely-shared communal or societal norms about right and wrong. Put another way, ethics is a more individual assessment of values as relatively good or bad, while morality is a more intersubjective community assessment of what is good, right or just for all. The relevance of the distinction is seen when questions such as “how should I act?” and “what should I do?” are broadened to Socrates’ question, “how should we live?”. Granted modern society’s multiplicity of cultures and traditions, resulting in a diverse moral collage, with no single truth easily identifiable, the big moral question is surely, “how should we live together?”. Marco Bellucci In approaching such a question, the individual ethical answer can be limited by its essential egotism. It can be restricted to one’s own worldview rather than being inherently aware of the existence and relevance of others. Since recognition of others is implicit to moral questions, according to the distinction made above, moral questions can and must be answered universally. This requires having a shared dialogue – precisely since these questions deal with good, right, and justice for all. Put another way, moral decision-making relocates ethical decision-making away from an individualistic reflection on imperatives, utility or virtue, into a social space. In that space one is implicitly aware of the other, wherein we understand from the start that we need to have a dialogue. There is a difference between what I should do in an ethical dilemma, and what we should do in a moral dilemma. In ethical dilemmas, individual decision-making may draw on the frameworks of “must-do” imperatives, utility consequences, the seeking of goodness, or a guiding framework from God. But ethical decisions should recognise the context within which they are set. That is, they must recognize that duties can be ranked in a hierarchy (for example, to stop at an accident to render assistance trumps the promise of meeting for coffee); in a similar way, consequences can be ranked too. In moral decisions, in which the importance of others and their actual situation in the world, is recognised, community decisions are based on dialogue between all those on whom the decision impacts. That dialogue should aim to be inclusive, non-coercive, self-reflective, and seek consensus among real people, rather than seek an elusive absolute moral truth. Mike/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND As a simple example, consider the decision of which career I choose. First I collect the facts (such as the pre-requisites I need in order to enrol in a course). Collecting the facts precedes any ethical or moral decision-making. The ethical dimension of the decision leads me to think about myself and recognize, say, that I have certain talents, or that I would like to maximise my work-life balance. The moral dimension is added when I recognize my decision affects others – my family, the community in which I live – in terms of being able to serve others, rather than simply earn an income. Thus, I widen my own perspective and discuss with those around me how we should decide. But it is contentious whether certain dilemmas are seen predominantly (or exclusively) as ethical or moral ones. Just consider euthanasia, homosexuality, suicide, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to name a few. Each may be seen by different observers as a dilemma either for the individual to make a decision about (an ethical dilemma), or for a society to make a decision about (a moral dilemma). How we see the dilemma in large part determines the approach we will take to the decision to be made. That is, whether I think about it via a monologue with myself, or whether we, all together, enter into a dialogue about it. In short, there is a valuable difference between ethics and morals. ... Thanks to Paul Walker /Conjoint Assoc Professor, Clinical Unit in Ethics and Health Law, Newcastle University
  4. Though there's some justification (via body language study) to claim that some gay men do indeed reveal clues like self-repression in gait and flapping of hands to avoid closeness and unbroken eye contact, it's not common to all gay men and therefore not much to go on. "Sounding gay" is a thing worthy of research, as is an apparent prevalence of HPD. (Nothing worse than a braying queen who insists on talking at people, rather than to them...) That having been said, we're of a marginalized class and it's quite fucked to conflate probable effects of our trauma with our sexuality or apparent gender "issues". For those who think with their vaginas, I'd merely say there's only one way to find out. There's many an effeminate squealer out there who can do a vag to satisfaction, and then some. Guys who you'd think were expelled from Gay Inc for being too gay... Christ knows what's behind OPs question: "Can a mans' body language give away his homosexuality?" ...nothing terribly benign from the sounds of that inquiring mind.
  5. The diagnosis which all neurosis seeks. Wear it as a badge. Use it as a soothing body scrub. Make the quantum leap from common garden-variety genius to Certified Blameless Genius.
  6. Can lead to unethical behavior? If, say, a racist individuals acts upon their beliefs, their behavior becomes unethical. The very belief in itself isn't necessarily unethical, but allowing it to become performative in nature would classify under "unethical behavior". This sounds very good to me. I don't dispute it. Nor do I recant my opinion of what's the worst opinion. And yes, a new thread would be a good idea so that topic discussion can proceed smoothly here.
  7. We're at least on the same page with that. Huh? Is the definition of amorality up for redefinition? I'm not seeing any relevance in conflating morals - or lack thereof - with ethics
  8. That's entirely your construction. And what of amorality? Does it impact on your simple conclusion re what is ethical?
  9. Does it? That would be more "morals". Ethics concerns itself with a life well-lived. Therefore I'd consider the worst opinion to be one which is personally born of poor ethics, and adopted by the masses. It becomes worst by the degree to which it's embraced and acted upon. Would you mind explaining yourself? Or at least your criteria.
  10. The unethical one, which moves from the individual to the masses.
  11. I'll answer this ^... ...with this ^. There's not a lot of dot-connecting required. "Our truth" is unfortunately only our partly-assembled collection of bullshit. It may not even be right for us...regardless of how good we feel about it at the time.
  12. Well that would entirely depend on to what degree of delusion we're happy with! Answer Of The Week!
  13. "Tall" fits that bill nicely. Remember that couture (especially) starts with a two-dimensional sketch of elegance. What appears on a catwalk and in fashion photographs needs to best represent that ideal.
  14. Sort of. Emphasis on "free". Pure spontaneity. I'm drawing on Sartre to simply demonstrate that free will exists. (The very philoso-babble I condemn as most likely to completely bury the "What is truth?" question in answers more appropriate to "What Is Real?" )
  15. How does the second not qualify the first?