It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Kashai
Aha but in this discussion you are the first to bring of the issue of subjective vs. objective experiences.
◾Skepticism is not necessarily the unwillingness or inability to believe in any given scenario, phenomenon, account, or hypothesis. Given empirical proof, a skeptic can and indeed must, in lieu of any remaining alternative explanations, become a "believer."
◾Skepticism is refraining from accepting something as factual without empirical proof. (This does not preclude accepting that that thing may be factual. In fact, without proof to the contrary, the skeptic must accept the possibility that it is factual!)
◾Skepticism is not asserting that something is not, cannot, or never has been true. That is asserting a fact, which if one is truly skeptical, requires proof. This means a skeptic cannot assert that something is not true without proof. In other words, a skeptic cannot tell you that you are lying, crazy, or wrong, unless they have empirical proof that this is the case. If they do so without firm proof, then they are engaging in pseudo-skepticism (just as many debunkers refer to certain questionable beliefs or theories as pseudo-science) or are setting out preemptively to debunk the topic at hand. The most they can say is in that instance if they wish to call themselves truly skeptical is, "I believe you are wrong, but I cannot prove it, and I distinguish between my personal beliefs and facts."
◾Skepticism is expressing that one does not know something for certain about an asserted fact, and asking questions about that asserted fact. These can be questions one asks oneself, others, embarks on research to answer, or in some cases, unfortunately, which may never be answered definitively.
◾Skepticism does not require that one not hold personal beliefs which lack absolute proof. In other words, the skeptic can say, "I believe __________, but I do not know for a fact that my belief is correct." This includes religious beliefs, beliefs in certain debatable phenomena, etc.
◾Skepticism does require distinction between facts and beliefs. That is to say, the skeptic can hold any belief he or she feels drawn to or prefers to hold, but they cannot assert that those beliefs are facts without empirical proof.
... and that is not nor has it ever been my position. I am merely saying I don't know if that's his position either necessarily, outside of the purely ontological context.
I disagree with you & LM that words can exist without a speaker and hearer
Originally posted by Metatronin
being offended by anything just shows deep brainwashing within ones self. Curiosity is a more natural state.
But you deny the same effect on others by saying IM has an "ontological" argument supporting the idea words don’t hurt.
The part of his argument that you agreed with “factually” is that words in isolation(on planet IM) – (without the rest of the process you described in your post) - do not inflict pain.
So words outside of “process” don’t inflict harm?
What words are these and who speaks them and who hears them? Do you. Where are IM’s & your outside-of -process words.
He is not making an ontological argument for words don’t hurt *unless his existence is one of disassociated disconnectedness.
Originally posted by BDBinc
You have already made your position clear to all, you like IM’s clever “ontological argument” bully’s insulting words don’t hurt it’s the hearers problem that he/she understands what the words mean.
That we can talk about bully’s insulting words without the bully giving birth to them and tell the depressed people that hear insults not to attach meaning to the bully’s words. If bully’s victims do process the words and feel hurt it was because it’s depressed/vulnerable human beings responsibility to “exercise voluntary influence over her/his emotional response to words.
Originally posted by AceWombat04 - I do not agree with or advocate bullying, verbal abuse, intentionally insulting or offensive use of words, etc. And on the basis of the arguments I've made in the above posts, I also don't agree that it is always possible (or even necessarily desirable) to consciously mediate emotional response to words.
That doesn't mean I believe they can't be or aren't part of a larger process that does and that people should not act with compassion when choosing their words.
This should not be construed as me arguing that this capacity is the same for everyone, that I believe people should or must or even would be better off necessarily, exercising said capacity. As someone whose mental status often outright prevents me from exercising said influence, it would be absurd for me to argue that.
Originally posted by BDBinc
reply to post by AceWombat04
But you forgot to answer the questions!!
1)Why would you “ attempt to delineate the nature of said effect of words?”
2) How are "words" that you now say are “an ontological entity”, in isolation?
He seems to be (not is, necessarily) making a purely ontological argument with respect to words in isolation. I on the other hand am trying to express a more holistic context - as are you, it seems - which includes that entire process
3) Do you thinks the word processing (without the word)causes the hurt, how can it ? As without itself to be processed there would/could be no reaction.
the fact that emotional pain can and does arise in relation to words means that words in that context are ipso facto related to the emotional pain via said process. When emotional pain occurs in relation to words, words are not in isolation. They are part of that broader context and that process.
Yes thanks for offering IM your subjective (but in your own words biased )look at 'DO words hurt?'
At least now IM can see a correlation between words and their emotional responses.
Before your agreement with his "ontological" argument he did not see any connections.
a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things: research showed a clear correlation between recession and levels of property crime.
• Statistics interdependence of variable quantities.
• Statistics a quantity measuring the extent of such interdependence.
• the process of establishing a relationship or connection between two or more measures.
1 a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition: the cause of the accident is not clear.
• reasonable grounds for doing, thinking, or feeling something: Faye's condition had given no cause for concern | [ with infinitive ] : the government had good cause to avoid war | class size is a cause for complaint in some schools.
2 a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate: she devoted her life to the cause of deaf people | I'm raising money for a good cause .
3 a matter to be resolved in a court of law.
• an individual's case offered at law.