Christianity

[Walker]

That gives rise to a moral and legal question:

If a licensed psychologist (are they even licensed?) fucks with folks on a forum, is that both unethical and punishable?

Hey Walker,

I'm a relative newcomer despite my registration date, so I'm not sure who the licensed psychologist might be, but from the context it seems that you're suggesting it's phyllo.

I wasn't aware that he held that qualification. If that is the case, then I do think that his ignorance of the definition of psychosis is very unprofessional.

As for "unethical", perhaps so. A professional should not publicly promote falsehoods about matters related to his profession.

As for "punishable", I'm not so sure. It's an interesting question. What do you think?

Initially, considering your initial reference, I was reading along on some thread somewhere and I remember the word psychologist.

It's kind of floating there in memory, unattached to anything but ... the fact that some breed of folks just love to piss all over Christianity, that is, get all thuggish and non-intellectual about the topic, so that's why I asked the question. I can't recall a thing by phyllo, since I don't follow the thread too closely.

Other than IC's brilliant insights, it's usually just the usual crap attacks based on belief, but I don't pay much attention to the names associated with the mundane views anymore.

However, brilliance on any subject does stand out, and I am patient, and I don't read or hear everything, which is why one of the few times I asked for a doing, was recently. I kinda follow my substantial nose.

Plus, if a free-wheeler happens to be a psychologist, maybe we'll see some wheelies.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I'll consider it for awhile out of default respect. No snap-answers for an honest transmission.

[Harry Baird]

some breed of folks just love to piss all over Christianity, that is, get all thuggish and non-intellectual about the topicnsmission.

I hear ya. This is the BigMike type, and part of why I've been so hard on the big fella. He's the type who doesn't understand at all that there's plenty of value in Christianity - hell, he's the type who doesn't even believe in God. The perverse thing is that in my mirroring of his arrogance he hasn't expressed much of his own, but that doesn't bother me much because I know that it's there, and that those of my ilk know as much too.

[phyllo]

If you would kindly avoid this sort of commentary and resume the conversation in which you also have a role it would, for this participant, be appreciated.

If you think that referring to "contemplating the best bitches worth fucking" is okay they I have to put you in the same category as the others.

What kind of ridiculous forum is this?

The best kind: free wheelin' and (mostly) uncensored.

I got my fill of that at ILP.

I was hoping for something better here.

[Walker]

That gives rise to a moral and legal question:

If a licensed psychologist (are they even licensed?) fucks with folks on a forum, is that both unethical and punishable?

As for "punishable", I'm not so sure. It's an interesting question. What do you think?

Naw. Not by blanket regulation.

Being a professional psychologist requires enough self-awareness to know that for a psychologist, inequity is its own reward, and the reward is self-punishment. Self-punishment is stronger than folks realize, stronger than many folks. Self-punishment by a mind that knows just how to do it, is what causes uncaught criminals to confess to the authorities, so that's how strong it is. A mind blocked by ignorance, which has various causes, will be consumed by inequity, and psychologists know that, even though they use different lingo to consider the principles. Self-preservation.

[henry quirk]

If you think that referring to "contemplating the best bitches worth fucking" is okay they I have to put you in the same category as the others.

What kind of ridiculous forum is this?

The best kind: free wheelin' and (mostly) uncensored.

I got my fill of that at ILP.

I was hoping for something better here.

Describe better: more moderation?

[Walker]

some breed of folks just love to piss all over Christianity, that is, get all thuggish and non-intellectual about the topicnsmission.

I hear ya. This is the BigMike type ...

I've never read a thing by BigMike, and you have your own impressions.

[phyllo]

The best kind: free wheelin' and (mostly) uncensored.

I got my fill of that at ILP.

I was hoping for something better here.

Describe better: more moderation?

More polite, less nasty, less attacks on the person, less confrontational, less arrogant, less self-righteous.

[Harry Baird]

That gives rise to a moral and legal question:

If a licensed psychologist (are they even licensed?) fucks with folks on a forum, is that both unethical and punishable?

As for "punishable", I'm not so sure. It's an interesting question. What do you think?

Naw. Not by blanket regulation.

Fair call. I wouldn't have thought so either. It's a bit too distant from the true professional context in which the professional operates.

Being a professional psychologist requires enough self-awareness to know that for a psychologist, inequity is its own reward, and the reward is self-punishment. Self-punishment is stronger than folks realize, stronger than many folks. Self-punishment by a mind that knows just how to do it, is what causes uncaught criminals to confess to the authorities, so that's how strong it is. A mind blocked by ignorance, which has various causes, will be consumed by inequity, and psychologists know that, even though they use different lingo to consider the principles. Self-preservation.

Inequity as "reward": that's an interesting idea. A sort of reversal.

[Harry Baird]

some breed of folks just love to piss all over Christianity, that is, get all thuggish and non-intellectual about the topicnsmission.

I hear ya. This is the BigMike type ...

I've never read a thing by BigMike

Gosh, some folk have all the luck.

and you have your own impressions.

Most assuredly.

[Walker]

As for "punishable", I'm not so sure. It's an interesting question. What do you think?

Naw. Not by blanket regulation.

Fair call. I wouldn't have thought so either. It's a bit too distant from the true professional context in which the professional operates.

Being a professional psychologist requires enough self-awareness to know that for a psychologist, inequity is its own reward, and the reward is self-punishment. Self-punishment is stronger than folks realize, stronger than many folks. Self-punishment by a mind that knows just how to do it, is what causes uncaught criminals to confess to the authorities, so that's how strong it is. A mind blocked by ignorance, which has various causes, will be consumed by inequity, and psychologists know that, even though they use different lingo to consider the principles. Self-preservation.

Inequity as "reward": that's an interesting idea. A sort of reversal.

Punishment is deliberate unfairness, which is why it also punishes the fair, and we're not just talking hair.

[henry quirk]

I got my fill of that at ILP.

I was hoping for something better here.

Describe better: more moderation?

More polite, less nasty, less attacks on the person, less confrontational, less arrogant, less self-righteous.

Sure, that's ideal. Not how to make such a thing happen. Role modeling, I guess: be the civil creature and hope it rubs off on others.

[Harry Baird]

Punishment is deliberate unfairness

Hmm. I thought punishment was fair deterrence. At least, in the ideal.

we're not just talking hair.

Let's talk about hair though. I have male pattern baldness. It totally sucks. Otherwise, my hair is shoulder length and my beard kicks butt. How about you?

[Immanuel Can]

And it makes you wonder...do they even hear themselves?

Yeah, I hear it. I don't deny that it's ugly, but, for personal reasons, it's necessary.

I don't think it is, Harry. There's nothing added to the conversation by way of those strategies, and it undermines the key hypothesis its practitioners are attempting to advance, in certain cases.

I understand some people might not be capable of more. Having limited mental means at their disposal, and feeling frustrated with their inability to express propositions or advance arguments, they lapse into obscenities and abuse. That's a function of their capacities, perhaps.

But I don't think you are they.

[Immanuel Can]

Instead of dealing with whatever you say..

And then they'll try to dismiss you entirely, as if whatever you say is simply beneath them, and you don't even count as a human being or a voice..

Not everybody will do that...

Yes, but you do that don't you Mr Can...

Never.

You will search in vain my old messages for abuse, obscenities, profanities, and such irrelevancies. I'm quite deliberate about maintaining a focus on the arguments in hand.

Now, if a speaker ceases to offer anything of substance, I may exercise my option not to engage them. We all have only so much time, and so much liberty to engage, and we should spend our means judiciously. To waste it on irrelevancies is not required of anyone here, and polite withdrawal is always an option for anybody. But you will not find that I do so with abusive means.

Go and look, if you doubt me.

[Immanuel Can]

- Bottom line question: Does Christian tolerance in fact feed idiotic responses that could fuel intolerance of Christians in general, an intolerance that could physically manifest upon some unsuspecting simulacron?

Well, Christians are certainly counselled against the indiscriminate dispersal of nacreous spheroids in porcine precincts. But we have never found that we need do anything at all to induce intolerance. It comes, even when entirely unbidden. See John 15:18-19.

As for a "simulacron," by definition, it's an unreal simulation of something. So I'm not so sure what you mean there.