Beware of those who speak in the second-person narrative.

Bluesma

BDBinc

But I did not say you were unconscious or not functioning in the panic attack you described .
I repeated what you told me you were doing which was thinking and feeling PAST emotions and meanings on the current experience. You were not focused on the moment, like you said you were experiencing PAST thoughts, past emotions and past meaning.

This thread is constructed on the offense provided by second person PAST dialog, the OP feels I am not to speak in second person narrative on ats- which the OP now has said will help you find your voice (as though you didn't/don't clearly have whatever the idea of "self ownership" means).
Don't worry it does not bother me if people "point and laugh' or "gang up" at an out of context quote - I feel sorry for them.

I realized after I posted that that even if I feel uncomfortable with another being mocked, or ganged up on, this is someone who is expressing that they do not want to be respected by others, so my discomfort is not shared. You are not being respected, but that is exactly what you wanted.
Why it makes you feel "sorry for them" is an interesting element, psychologically speaking- that is a logic worth exploring! But for another thread, perhaps.
Enjoy.

PS- The OP of this thread has never once said anything about what should be allowed on ATS- that is not the subject (neither was it for me, in the other thread, though you make the same assertions).

At any point you could choose to NOT make this about you- the OP presented it as something to discuss on a wider scale- the principles of communication and exchange between humans in general, as a philosophic look at questions of ethics, psychology. You are bringing the focus upon yourself- not Aphorism.

edit on 16-10-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

I feel sorry for people who are so far away from themselves that they take pleasure in "pointing and laughing" &"ganging up" and they want to do at others so much that the OP's misinterpreting some out of context quotes was enough. To put the cherry on top they say this type of action is philosophy .

Ethics you say?

BluesmaI realized after I posted that that even if I feel uncomfortable with another being mocked, or ganged up on, this is someone who is expressing that they do not want to be respected by others, so my discomfort is not shared. You are not being respected, but that is exactly what you wanted.
Why it makes you feel "sorry for them" is an interesting element, psychologically speaking- that is a logic worth exploring! But for another thread, perhaps.
Enjoy.

Because you do not respect me (because I do not acknowledge your sovereignty) your disrespect is what makes it Ok to "laugh and point" and "gang up" on other human beings?
Or is it that I do not need your respect that you can "mock" and say that is what someone wanted?


How this thread was presented and what the OP had said (with the bulk of his post being his interpretations of out of context quotes from ATS) has nothing to do with a " wider scale" or the general use of second hand narrative.
Only after the accusations of rant did he added a link to Chomsky and name a few famous philosophers.

reply to post by BDBinc


I hope you realize words aren't necessarily capable of pointing and laughing. It was a metaphor. Yet you haven't accused me of using metaphors, only of pointing and laughing, which I'm not actually doing. Sounds like fantasy to me.

It seems no one can say why this isn't philosophy. My guess is that this is merely a follow the crowd mentality going on here. I wonder if you would have still come to this conclusion if no one said it was a rant. My guess is no.

Why isn't this a philosophical topic? Why is it a rant?

Simple question. Still waiting for an answer. Still pointing and laughing.

It's second-person narrative by the way. Not "second-hand". It helps to educate oneself on the topic before attempting to refute it. But it seems some are too compelled to lead by emotion and not by reason.

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

I hope you realize words aren't necessarily capable of pointing and laughing. It was a metaphor. Yet you haven't accused me of using metaphors, only of pointing and laughing, which I'm not actually doing. Sounds like fantasy to me.

It seems no one can say why this isn't philosophy. My guess is that this is merely a follow the crowd mentality going on here. I wonder if you would have still come to this conclusion if no one said it was a rant. My guess is no.

Why isn't this a philosophical topic? Why is it a rant?

Simple question. Still waiting for an answer. Still pointing and laughing.

It's second-person narrative by the way. Not "second-hand". It helps to educate oneself on the topic before attempting to refute it. But it seems some are too compelled to lead by emotion and not by reason.

On page 6 I answered you and told you why it was a rant -but you did not listen,( its still there if you want to read it).
Like you said either you are still" pointing and laughing" or b)you are not.
If you have now decided you do not like YOUR declared motive of pointing and laughing, this pointing and laughing is NOW a metaphor what for.
It was you originally who outed the "pointing and laughing"( since then another poster added their thoughts of "ganging up" & "mocking') .
I have not refuted or tried to dictate the use of second -person narrative for some people on ATS.

reply to post by BDBinc


This is what "rant" means.

rant |rant|
verb [ no obj. ]
speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way: she was still ranting on about the unfairness of it all.

So why is it a rant? I saw no such answer on page 6.

Also, why isn't this a topic of philosophy? You've asserted it wasn't philosophy many times. Surely one would know why they make such assertions.

I'll keep waiting.

reply to post by BDBinc


It looks like you got your wish. It is now in the rant forum. Someone complained loud enough.

Aphorism
reply to post by BDBinc

 

It looks like you got your wish. It is now in the rant forum. Someone complained loud enough.

So it was a rant after all.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

So it was a rant after all.

It wasn't. Now it is. You made sure of that.

reply to post by Aphorism


Seemed Philosophical to me. But, I guest that could be (my thinking) Philosophical or a rant. hehehe

reply to post by RUFFREADY


People will do whatever they can to avoid being painted in a certain light. When they can't argue their way out of it we see ad hominem or "poisoning the well" (a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says). Also, the arguments that this is a rant is a clear straw man. Dropping into fallacy is all they could do.

In this case, it was running to the mods because philosophically they had no where else to go.

reply to post by Aphorism


Makes sense to me! Thanks for the reply!