Pavlov proved what most want to ignore

[its Leslie]

This is just to allay your concerns Ray, no if I was going to do something, 1 votes wouldn't satisfy me.

No you won't have cause for concern from me. I was just commenting that when I am angry I am genuinely dangerous.

To me, serious is something like locating you and then incriminating your good name in the work place in a manner that is destructive. Something that would actually cause you REAL harm. But that is just an illustration not a threat so for god's sake don't go fussing over it.

If I was genuinely bothered by anyone or anything on Lit I would likely just go away.
After all, those individuals slinging 1 votes at us authors are demonstrating how close they truely are to being living fossils (the missing link).
I value my time way to much to waste it on insane petulant behaviour. So slinging 1 votes will only make me feel dumb.

Idle threats are for the insecure.

And you and I are wasting way to much time on each other and not enough time on the threads topic eh.
Maybe I should start using more smileys in my posts. People take me to seriously.

 

[wildsweetone]

interjection your honour, if i may...

i like the idea of the occasion smiley, doesn't cost anything and is jolly effective in displacing possible future misunderstanding.

bring em on!

 

[wildsweetone]

i've been thinking

Ray said 'My position is this: No matter what the excuse is, hatred, in all its forms, is the main cause of human inflicted misery.'

i was wondering, is hatred worse than greed? i thought greed was the main cause of what you refer to as 'human inflicted misery'.

Ronde said 'Pavlov's experiments required two key elements - a trigger (the bell) and consistent reinforcement (food).'

is not the mere fact that nobody stops the repetitive behaviour or sensationalism or desensitisation, likely in itself to be a reinforcement?

and further to that thought, is not the mere fact that we can't all shake off the dogma which we carry often without realising, simply reinforcing it?

interesting AV Leslie

 

[its Leslie]

The new AV is just an experiment actually (for those wondering). Not easy to find something indicative of a person and within 150 pixels square.

Will likely change it later, but that one amused me (and it was within 150 pixels on a side helped). Ideally I want to get the one of a guy with a bagpipe (didn't think of it in time).

Perfection in an AV is obviously not easily found. Most of my first choices were unable to fit size constraints.

Wish I had said what Wildsweetone said the way she said it.

 

[wildsweetone]

Wish I had said what Wildsweetone said the way she said it.

thank you dear. we are who we are eh, and we are all still learning as we go along. sorry it took me a darn week to figure out how to say it though.

too many aspects of the one thread spinning all at the same time addles my brains.

 

[Ray Dario]

Re: i've been thinking

i was wondering, is hatred worse than greed? i thought greed was the main cause of what you refer to as 'human inflicted misery'.

An interesting point. Spent some time thinking about this. But in the end, I'll stick by what I said. Greed is certainly bad. Taken to extreams it does cause misery. But greed wasn't behind Hitler's Jewish death camps, neither was religion. It was simple hatred. He had no logical reason to hate the Jews, but he did hate them. Greed wasn't behind a lot of horrible, cruel, things that men have done to each other.

However, your point is well taken, and it has caused me to think long and hard about what I said. Hate certainly isn't the only cause of injustice or misery. Thinking about it, I came up with a few others. Lust, jealosy, and insanity are a few more. Perhaps hatred is just the one that has touched me the most.

Maybe religion has touched Leslie the most.

Maybe greed has touched someone else.

I guess it all goes back to man's ability to inflict himself upon others.

is not the mere fact that nobody stops the repetitive behaviour or sensationalism or desensitisation, likely in itself to be a reinforcement?

and further to that thought, is not the mere fact that we can't all shake off the dogma which we carry often without realising, simply reinforcing it?

interesting AV Leslie

About this part of the postline: Sorry Leslie, but I see this as just another cop out. Another excuse for people's actions or inaction. Every person, young or old has choices and most of those not driving in Texas have the brain power to comprehend those choices.

If you see a rape occuring and do nothing then you are a low life piece of shit. I don't care if you were the subject of some weird government experiment where you were strapped to a chair with your eyes forced open and made to watch six hundred hours of rape scenes straight.

Having that happen to you would be a reason to kill the damned scientists who did it, but not a reason to walk by a rape in progress without lifting a finger. In the end, it is the person who is to blame for the actions they take or don't take. It is not the gun who is to blame for killing. It is the person.

Blaming the tool is a cop out, a fallacy ... a lie! Blaming conditioning is just a variation on the same theme. Anything to avoid putting the responsibility where it belongs. But we will never be able to fix what is wrong with society as long as we refuse to believe the truth. You can't fix something without knowing what is wrong. You can't make something right, if you are too busy blaming others for your actions.

Anyway, that's what I think.

Ray

 

[its Leslie]

Just making sure Ray cause I am unsure, you do realise that this following comment...

is not the mere fact that nobody stops the repetitive behaviour or sensationalism or desensitisation, likely in itself to be a reinforcement?

and further to that thought, is not the mere fact that we can't all shake off the dogma which we carry often without realising, simply reinforcing it?

interesting AV Leslie

was not written by me eh...just checking

Every day we are forced to endure conditioning, but when anyone objects, they get beaten over the head with the banner of freedom from censorship.

An example that annoys me personally is, every time you see an adult web site, you are entreated to particpate in viewing sluts whores and cock sucking bitches, cheaters, bestiality and well anything they can think of.
But through it all, they advertise it as "objectionable filth". Dirty perversions that require you to definitely obtain special software that will clean up all evidence of your disgusting behaviour.

I do NOT think of women as sluts, I detest the term. If a woman enjoys pleasing a man orally does she have to be spit on as some manner of low life scum?

Every time we visit an adult site we are being forced to endure conditioning where are actions are deemed unright.

You can call it what you like, but it won't alter the fact. Every time you get told something, regardless of how "obviously incorrect the statement is", you are being conditioned.

To say that your intellect is specifically "immune" is just arrogant behaviour that won't impress anyone. We are all the same. No one is so special they can "rise above it".

With regard to Hitler Ray. You need to read more history (a lot more history). You have no idea what you are talking about where Hitler, his policies, the Jews, and the Second World War are concerned.
But don't take my word for it. Check out any site on the net, that services the interests of wargamers. But don't say I didn't warn you when they reeeeeeeeeeeaally explain how idiotic your notions on Hitler are.

 

[ronde]

At the risk of breaking the stream of this debate, I would offer a comment.

The adult web-sites that scream "objectionable filth" and "dirty perversions" are more likely guilty of good advertising than an attempt at conditioning anybody. It is human nature to be curious about things that we are told to be taboo, and the site owners are just playing on this quirk to get a credit card number for their continuing monthly charges. It's kind of like reading the "wet paint" sign, and having to touch the wall to see if it's true.

 

[wildsweetone]

Re: Re: i've been thinking

About this part of the postline: Sorry Leslie, but I see this as just another cop out. Another excuse for people's actions or inaction. Every person, young or old has choices and most of those not driving in Texas have the brain power to comprehend those choices.

I went to write a long spiel in answer to your comments Ray, but I decided to simplify it to this:

Not everybody has the ability to realise that they have choice in life.

Even when we do realise we have choice, often our choice isn't conducive to always being what everybody else wants us to be. Dogma is a darn difficult thing to erase from our lives and for the most part, our lives are conditional on what others think of us.

 

[its Leslie]

Actually Ronde, while I don't know a lot about how to "build" web sites I know a number of people that use them (not just adult sites though).

The adult sites though get income based on visitors opening the page. Once you go there they have achieved income. All the ads are there to provide a service. They pay you the person who made the page, a sum, usually a pitance, but it adds up over time, for each person that opens the page.
This is why a lot of pages have that annoyig habit of saying ahh you want to go "back" eh, but no, I want you to go to this page instead. It's an annoying web site design concept, but each site you end up on, is giving someone money.

Its the reason why some pages will put up a pointless display of the same old bloody images. All they want is for your search engine to find them, drag you there, so you can create that piddly little bit of income. Some pages imbed key words that have nothing at all to do with sex. but a search engine finds it and sends you there. Its why some search engines have so much trouble with parental controls.
If yu are looking for something popular, you might find that some of your search results point you to red herring adult web sites.

So if I type in cumshot, well obviously I will get a predictable result, but if I type in Disney, I stand a good chance of seeing a site where Tarzan is getting sucked off by Jane.

So the fact that sites label their product in a "naughty tone is true, in an hour of web searching of adult sites, some will be out of idiotic curiosity level. But odds are most adult sites will be sites you had no choice over at all. You will have been directed there totally against your will, by a methodolgy that is intrusive and almost in most cases impossible to avoid.

I have actually had to close my browser using control alt delete just to escape from some adult site "forced forwards" on more occasions than I can remember. Can I complain, well sure I can complain, but no one forced me to go to the first site naturally.

The only place where "good advertising" applies, is knowing that unless the user has special software that kills the effect (yes you can find that sort of thing, because smart programers seldo like that shit), it allows you to promote yet more income with or without the users permission. And more income is more income eh. And its all legal (even if friggin annoying).

 

[Ray Dario]

Just making sure Ray cause I am unsure, you do realise that this following comment...

Yes Leslie, I knew you didn't make the comment. You did however start the thread.

About your other comments before the one quoted below: I am not denying that conditioning takes place. I am not denying that it can affect our decisions. However, despite all this, I still say that people are responsible for the decisions they make. And that is the point I'm trying to get across.

If a man holds a gun to your head and orders you to hold a baby underwater until it is dead and you do it, then you are still a murderer. You had a choice to refuse. Yes, refusing may have cost you your life, but you still had the choice and you chose to commit murder.

With regard to Hitler Ray. You need to read more history (a lot more history). You have no idea what you are talking about where Hitler, his policies, the Jews, and the Second World War are concerned.
But don't take my word for it. Check out any site on the net, that services the interests of wargamers. But don't say I didn't warn you when they reeeeeeeeeeeaally explain how idiotic your notions on Hitler are.

Leslie, if you are getting your "history" from wargamer sites then I understand why you think I don't know history. Fact is I have spent a great deal of time studying history, WWII specifically, and the man Hitler was (perhaps you think he is still alive?). I have read "Mein Kampf" (translated because I don't speak enough German). I have read most of the papers Hitler wrote that are still publicly available. While I was in college I took two semesters that dealt specifically with WWII and ended up with 21 credit hours of history.

I am confident that I know what I'm talking about.

Now about your comment. You have chastised me, on more than one occasion, about discounting ideas without providing substantive arguments. Yet you repeatedly have not backed up your own remarks with facts.

Which of my ideas about Hitler are "reeeeeeeeeeeaally idiotic"? The notion that he was evil?
The notion that he hated Jews?
Perhaps you think that the notion that he was "Austrian" instead of German is "reeeeeeeeeeeaally idiotic".
Do you profess that the holocaust never happened?
Do you think his policies were justified because of his childhood?

Perhaps my views don't fit the skin-head neo-nazi anti-jewish rubbish that you get off the web, but it is more accurate.

I think that, unless you have something based a little more in fact and a little less "feeling" in your arguments, that I will simply walk away from this. Arguing with emotions is pointless and futile and so far your arguments have all be emotive.

Ray

 

[its Leslie]

Hmmm wildsweetone was probably right (in a private conversation), I would possibly like Ray more if we met face to face.

I am impressed with your creditials Ray (I hope that is taken positively).

I would not say I base my knowledge of history on my wargame web site experience of course. I have only ever excelled academically in one area in my case, that being history. I have the honours certificates to substantiate that claim.

I would though, not automatically discount the wargamer sites on the web so rapidly. True they have a lot of ding bats on them (I make a point of avoiding them as much as possible).

But a large portion of the crowd that developes wargames are in fact people steeped in academic accomplishments (because no one is going to buy a wargame designed by an obviously unschooled cretin).
The people I tend to interact with online are generally quite knowledgable.

Still I will admit, for every person that sees history in one vien, it is easy to find several that disagree (that's what makes the debates interesting).

Your original comments though were possibly only lacking in depth, and perhaps that is where my problem was.

But to allay your possible misinterpretation of me, I am not pro neo nazi nor into jew hating or revisionist notions. The only good use for a neo nazi, is as a boat anchor (assuming you have run out of good heavy Klansmen).

I will agree to drop the Hitler discussion though (I think we are possibly boring the others). I think it is likely given enough time, we would likely agree on a lot of issues connected to the Second World War. The only lunatic notions, usually come from the uneducated (you don't sound uneducated).

 

[wildsweetone]

i simply see intelligent people who obviously have well informed opinions and could no doubt debate at great length.

it would be easier if the topic were specifically on one area though i think. too general a comment leaves open too huge an array of options to discuss making it virtually impossible for some of us to understand what the heck is going on and far be it from me to say this, but it's an open thread for everyone to read, and i'm always open to learning.

and hey, that's all just my opinion.