The inability to argue with insanity.

You are all talking about the inability to argue with insanity...obviously from experience.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions expecting different results. ~Einstein~

"Crazy people don't know they're crazy. I know I'm crazy. Therefore I am not crazy." ~Captain Jack Sparrow~

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You are all talking about the inability to argue with insanity...obviously from experience.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions expecting different results. ~Einstein~

"Crazy people don't know they're crazy. I know I'm crazy. Therefore I am not crazy." ~Captain Jack Sparrow~

Lol. Touche!

Actually, Einstein borrowed that quote from Ben Franklin, if I remember correctly. I like the second one too.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Pink Floyd - Dark side of the moon

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
You simply cannot win an argument with a person who is insane.

Although not directly applicable to the insanity aspect, two powerful articles I read last year relate to this:

Generally speaking, I have found that apologetics do little to persuade those who are opposed to the gospel to turn to the truth. It is not possible to argue someone into the kingdom... I have yet to find anyone who came to Christ through losing a debate.

Several years back, apologetics was the most important thing in my life and it was the focus of my studies; however, my focus changed once I realized that I saw no fruit from ‘proving’ my position. What I found is that both sides remain firmly entrenched and all the information in the world does not seem to change the mind of the debater.

The scripture tells us that it is the foolishness of the preached gospel that saves those who believe; therefore, we must look to the gospel as the heart of our mission.

www.exchangedlife.com...
www.exchangedlife.com...

It reminded me of a situation from almost twenty years ago, that still to this day stays in my mind. It was a lesson that I was meant to remember for the rest of my life. We went to a restaurant in Little Italy and the priest began to reveal himself. He was arrogant and proud. He was nothing like the television presence he conveyed on the cable channel I was familiar with.

I noticed the waiter was thinking a lot about our table...

“Um, I have a question, maybe you could help me? I wanted to ask you something, I kind of well, I live with my girlfriend and I know the Church says that’s not right but I just wanted to ask you why that is. We love each other, and it doesn’t feel wrong to me, but I still wanted to ask you. And, I don’t go to church, but I was baptized Catholic and you know, I wanted to know what Jesus would say about this whole thing…”

But the celebrity priest sat back in his chair, shot my friend and me a self righteous glance, and replied to the waiter, “Listen buddy. Maybe you have a problem with church teaching and you can’t sleep at night, but I don’t. I certainly don’t have any problem sleeping at night.” –and he said something else but by this point I was stunned. He was arrogant before, but I didn’t expect him to do this. The waiter’s face went red and he looked so embarrassed. I was in shock myself because I couldn’t believe what I heard. The waiter was still polite and excused himself, and I didn’t see him again, even though I looked after dinner.

This “celebrity” priest, so ‘brilliant’ and ‘holy’ to many…won his argument, at least in his own mind, but he lost a soul. And he didn’t let the soul drop from his hands, which would’ve been bad enough. That would have been irresponsible. No, this was intended, active cruelty behind a collar, and that soul might have been lost forever because of him.

“Win An Argument, Lose a Soul”

originally posted by: yulka
a reply to: Klassified

Do you believe in God!

No. I do not believe in deities.

Sometimes we must agree to disagree. Differences is culture, language and learned values can cause these disagreements without either party being insane

a reply to: Klassified

the Creator/"God" of today's Bible stated early on that much of what has come to pass 'historically' was foretold a long time ago, it might be a common theme on Planets, how will we ever know for sure without getting off this planet and discovering for ourselves what 'the future' holds in store for others on other planets, unless "extra-terrestrials" from other planets come here and say otherwise

a reply to: yulka

True...

Also I just realized I may have possibly implied that you were a part of the stealth agenda...

Not intentionally, carry on.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
You are all talking about the inability to argue with insanity...obviously from experience.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions expecting different results. ~Einstein~

"Crazy people don't know they're crazy. I know I'm crazy. Therefore I am not crazy." ~Captain Jack Sparrow~

Lol. Touche!

Actually, Einstein borrowed that quote from Ben Franklin, if I remember correctly. I like the second one too.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."

Pink Floyd - Dark side of the moon

I think you are right about Franklin. I love the DSOTM quote. Very good.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Insane people just don't conform to the same general consensus reality as sane people do, what may seem to a sane as a pineapple is, may appear as some oval shaped thing that tastes great and one can even drink the juice out of it.

Your comparison to pineapple seeing as remote control, can be extreme cases where the insane persons reality is just totally out of this world, such that everything he sees is not necessarily what a sane person would define things to be.

Perhaps if you take a step back and observe it at a neutral perspective it makes sense, that each reality whether it's a sane person view of reality and or an insane persons reality is as real as the next persons reality from the individual perspective.

Hence, a sane person therefore can go ahead and say, thousands of person reporting UFO or Alien encounters are insane because that's not what the general consensus agrees to, or that the general consensus or MSM programmed consensus needs physical evidence to agree that such encounters are real and that Alien exist.

Just something to ponder.

Peace

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.

Why try to reason with one you perceive as "insane" unless you think you can convince them they are and need professional help or you can lift them yourself (through good argument) into the realm of your idea of what SANITY is. You are couching Sanity/insanity with belief or disbelief in the Dogmatic faiths?

I used to be insane for 5 years. On a permanent trip of audio hallucinations brought on by drugs. I believe you to be somewhat or a mindsist, a racist with the mind. Insane people are just like you and me maybe hear or see things or believe in things which aren't real. Delusions. Now if the voices told me that your pineapple was actually the mothership that their alien life came to the planet on, I might believe the voices. When I was at my worst. It sounds like you got into an argument with someone and just labeling them insane because they disagree with you.

My mom told me once ," you got no insight into your illness". And it seems you got no insight into insanity or mental illness. Labeling someone insane who doesn't think like you is probably just ignorant. We all have morals in the world today and if an ancient culture "tortured babies" they might have thought they were just in doing so. Did you ever hear of a Brisk, I think. Circumsizing a baby. Might seem like torture but is widely accepted. If you leave a baby in the car to long and it dies from heat exhaustion, we have laws that lock the parents up here in America.

I am not sure I really understand you. Is this about religion? Is the pineapple the word of God and the insane person calls it an old book of long ago? You've been brief in your posts OP and I am not sure I understand you.

There is no pineapple.

a reply to: Luuke123

Try arguing with a Mormon. Show them the facts. Result- Insanity

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I agree you can't fix crazy sometimes. But you need to change your example in that comparison. A pineapple in your hand is objective reality and can be proven as such. But killing babies being evil is a moral judgement and concept with no objective reality. It's only an idea. So I don't think you should use that as your example. I could be wrong though.

Shouldn't you use two situations that match???

a reply to: mOjOm

My point here is that killing babies being evil for pleasure is as objectively obvious seeing a pineapple. If you can't see that maybe you should see a therapist.

a reply to: AsherLewin11

I have all the time lol. Thats brainwashing.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: mOjOm

My point here is that killing babies being evil for pleasure is as objectively obvious seeing a pineapple. If you can't see that maybe you should see a therapist.

I have and all they said was make sure I don't get caught. (kidding obviously)

But seriously. Let's say I was a psychopath though and wasn't able to feel or understand empathy at all. Then killing babies wouldn't be seen as evil because it's subjective. However, psychopath or not a pineapple in your hand would still be seen as a pineapple since it is literally an object that can't be denied and therefore objective.

a reply to: mOjOm

Yes but now your making a faulty comparison. You see just as lets say a schizo might view a pineapple as a tv remote regardless of his ability to define the two words. Because his mental instabilities cause visual impairments. In the same way a psychopaths mental instabilities cause a lack of moral intuition. Again just because someone may believe that killing babies is a good thing doesn't make them right. It just means that person is simply not in touch with reality. Like I said I have no stronger argument that objective morals exist rather than to point out things that are objectively wrong. Rape is objectively evil. The problem here is you would disagree with that statement and it is seriously disturbing.

a reply to: SilentHill666

The point here was that a person with insufficient ability to grasp the reality cannot be convinced of anything they cannot properly perceive.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Still not sure I can agree with you though. Take the clear example that you use of "killing babies is wrong". You say this is objectively always true. But is it???

What if the baby is in a situation where it will soon die by burning slowly to death. However, before that process begins you have the ability to kill the baby instantly but no way of saving him. So either way the baby still dies. But in one version you have the ability to remove the suffering from the child's destined outcome.

I would conclude that in that case killing the baby is a "Good" action to take.
Not killing him cannot stop the destined outcome anyway, but by taking no action you are in fact choosing for him to suffer before his eventual death which I would conclude as being a "Bad" action to take.