The inability to argue with insanity.

You simply cannot win an argument with a person who is insane. A sane person listening to your presentation may become convinced, but there is no way of convincing a person who is not sane of anything. For example, Lets say I am holding a pineapple in my hand and claim that it is a pineapple, but another person in the room instead claims that it is a tv remote. I would be completely incapable of refuting this persons claim as I would have no stronger proof other than a pineapple being in my hand. This person and I would have a fundamental disagreement about reality, and the only solution to this would be to the resolution of a mental illness. I find the above example, parallels to the discussions I have upon morality. For example I may say that torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil. Yet there are those who would argue that morality is based on the subjective whims of each individual person. Those who argue this are simply calling my pineapple a tv remote. There is a fundamental disagreement about reality.

I have no stronger argument that the torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil independently of anyone’s subjective preference than the self-evident fact that torturing babies is objectively evil. I cannot hope to convince anyone who disagrees with such things that objective morality is the truth behind reality as they simply are not in touch with reality.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I disagree. So long as your words are in touch with reality, and they can hear your words, and you keep speaking truth consistently from reality you create by doing so a portal througwhich they can leave their insanity and enter reality.

however, similarly an insane person speaking consistently from their dream world (lets use mainstream media as an example) create a portal through which people can leave reality and enter the insanity of that persons dream world.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
What if you are the one who is mentally ill, and you really are holding a remote? How do I convince you of that? I can't. Right?
Such is the dilemma we face in today's world. You are most certainly right that torturing a baby is wrong by any standards today, but there have been cultures in the past who were convinced they were obeying their god, and/or leader when they wiped out whole cultures. Men, women, children, and animals. Try to tell them they were wrong. They'll give you every reason they were right in what they did. Were they mentally unstable? Or is it the difference in their perception of right and wrong?

There is no winning this kind of argument, but mental illness is determined by the culture you belong to, as long as you abide in that culture.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

To refute another person's claim that you have a pineapple in your hand you have to first agree with that person on 1) the definition of pineapple and 2) an objective test for the existence of a pineapple. If the other person disagrees with you on your defintions or you cannot jointly come up with an objective test, then you have no hope of reaching agreement. Just stating that you think something is obvious is no way to reach agreement with someone. You must go deeper, to definitions and procedures. Same for anything else you want to agree with someone on.

a reply to: StanFL

Exaclty, definitions and procedures are based on language. So long as a person can hear and understand your language it is possibile for agreements to be made.

a reply to: StanFL

My point here is the person is not sane. So lets say we agree upon definitions, but they still claim a pineapple is a tv remote.

But what if it is a t.v. remote and yiu are the one that is insane?

Welcome to ats

Some disagree just to disagree or are stubborn in their beliefs. Some are in denial, some driving an agenda.

Can't really call any of these insane. Trying to convince or get someone to admit they are mistaken, wrong, in denial, lying, or whatever beyond a certain point is insane.

Can't change nobody…

I've know a few people who are mentally ill who cannot admit they are wrong, even when proven. I often make small bets with them, fifty cents, and there is literally one woman who will not bet if she "knows" she is right because she doesn't want to take my or anyone else's money. I tried to explain to her that that is when to bet, when you know you're right, but that didn't get through.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: StanFL

My point here is the person is not sane. So lets say we agree upon definitions, but they still claim a pineapple is a tv remote.

You use the definition to prove that the t.v. remote has none of the characteristics you both agree constitute a pineapple. Problem solved.

a reply to: Klassified

But I clearly stated that I was holding a pineapple, and claimed it to be a pineapple. Just because the analogy can be reversed means nothing. You seem to think just because a large group of people call something good that it means that is actually the case. And you and I have a fundamental disagreement about reality. Doesn't matter if those people thought what they were doing was a good thing it simply was not and there is no way for me to convince you of that other than to again point you to the self-evident truth that the murder of babies for pleasure is wrong.

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Except that only works with a sane person...

a reply to: Another_Nut

Wait .... Are we talking about a person holding a t.v. remote claiming its a pineapple or a pineapple claiming its a t.v. remote?

a reply to: Aleister

Haha hilarious anecdote

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are we still talking about pineapple?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It's not impossible, but it is a fantastic challenge. If you ever want to try, stop by the chemtrail forum.

Double Post

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What is insanity?

Obviously we have clinically insane, but I don't think this is what you mean.

I think when someone sees the good as bad or the bad as good those who live justly often times call them insane.

But I don't think it's insanity, I think it's entitlement and justification. If you can put yourself in each persons shoes. Start as a child and imagine the most just childhood with just parents teaching something that sounds just but may in fact be unjust.

What I mean is this. For now eliminate the extreme positions and follow along. If you grew up in a home with money, good education and good jobs, you could have a very just upbringing, Correct?

Suppose your parents don't understand Private Central Banking, Wall Street, Controlled Media, and maybe they have no idea what it's like to be poor.

If those parents taught their children that America was great and anyone who worked hard could get ahead, their children would believe them, wouldn't you agree? Their parents might even be ignorant enough to blame the poor for poverty.

So these just, hard working citizens, now feel entitled to income disparity. They don't even realize that the system is broken and the situation at the bottom is getting worse in most developed nations, with slight improvement and stagnation everywhere else.

Now if someone doesn't know all this are they insane or ignorant? And is the ignorance willing or by design?

If someone doesn't know the difference between a pineapple and a remote control, how will they know the difference of more important things?

Reason is not a common trait. We are very herd like to both are strength and weaknesses.

Try to better explain the difference between the remote and the pineapple. It is the responsibility of the wise to assist the unwise. If the only way is persuasion then work on your oratory skills and study Sophistry.

Who is the teacher? The one with Knowledge or the one without? Whose responsibility is it for the student to learn? This is one of the ways that teachers are judged harder than the students.

Some people have knowledge of both the good and the bad but continue to live in willful ignorance. To those few I will give the label insane.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
Definitions of insanity are as varied as are definitions of morals.
Because you say it is so, and can get fifty choir members to shout 'Amen', doesn't mean that I see it the same way.
Some people will defend their views & beliefs regardless of evidence otherwise - and the only real insanity involved is the 'insane' need to be Right at any cost.
If you care about the 'insane' person, it isn't that difficult to find some common ground to work from.
Why enter into discussion without concern for others' views (if they disagree)?
What is so difficult about asking if they might assist in carving the t.v. remote...and taking a bite of its delicious innards?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
For example, Lets say I am holding a pineapple in my hand and claim that it is a pineapple, but another person in the room instead claims that it is a tv remote.

Who is the sane one... is your pineapple really a pineapple or is it really a TV remote?

I have no stronger argument that the torturing babies for pleasure is objectively evil independently of anyone’s subjective preference than the self-evident fact that torturing babies is objectively evil. I cannot hope to convince anyone who disagrees with such things that objective morality is the truth behind reality as they simply are not in touch with reality.

Who is on the other side of this debate for you to feel the need to post?