Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Everyone in society hates each other Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Hate the system that causes these ideas if there is a causal link, fine - but to hate all people of a certain disposition even if they don't necessarily support what you hate due just to that disposition is illogical. I do not like Islam, I do not have anything against individual muslims and I certainly don't hate them. I might hate some of their actions, but I cannot in good faith label them all the same because ISIS did a thing, or some madman drove a truck into people. Some condemn him and therefore I support them, which is why I hate the ideas not their mouthpieces.
    I was talking about ISIS not the entirety of the muslim faith. I don't know where you got that idea from.

    btw....Your reference to casualty tells me that you have a deeper appreciation for what I wrote about objectivity. You obviously have the intellectual capacity to reach rational conclusions about issues....this is why i am going to literally tear you a new one in that other thread (https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...4102975&page=9) because you should know better than that irrational nonsensical, sexist, misandric, response of yours to IAmNero.......I am writing a reply. It is going to be long so you will have to wait for your lynching...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Sort of. It's about refining our methods of observing objective reality. All we can do is measure, and observe, quantify, define. Science is the language of the natural world; it's still a man made construct. Gravity would still exist, but how would we describe it? We could call it God.

    We quite literally do. Our understanding could be flawed/limited..? (which it is, btw)

    Yes, that's generally the idea.

    And this is why science is extremely difficult - easier said than done.

    They always are imperfect. I didn't say or implied they ceased to exist.
    How we describe it is fundamentally irrelevant to the objective truth.

    We don't define gravity. We might measure it imperfectly but the force itself still exists and is an objective truth.

    The last three aren't an answer to whether or not there is an objective truth.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    How we describe it is fundamentally irrelevant to the objective truth.

    We don't define gravity. We might measure it imperfectly but the force itself still exists and is an objective truth.

    The last three aren't an answer to whether or not there is an objective truth.
    Is gravity a force though...? Or is it the artifact of curvature of spacetime? Is it the fundamental interaction of mass? What is gravity?

    We most certainly do define what gravity is based on current understanding. That current understanding could be completely wrong to what 'the objective truth' actually is. The 'objective truth' is extremely hard, and sometimes impossible to discover.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    I was talking about ISIS not the entirety of the muslim faith. I don't know where you got that idea from.

    btw....Your reference to casualty tells me that you have a deeper appreciation for what I wrote about objectivity. You obviously have the intellectual capacity to reach rational conclusions about issues....this is why i am going to literally tear you a new one in that other thread (https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho...4102975&page=9) because you should know better than that irrational nonsensical, sexist, misandric, response of yours to IAmNero.......I am writing a reply. It is going to be long so you will have to wait for your lynching...
    I was making a more general point. If you hate the people (you replied to 'So you'd hate all muslims' in the affirmative) then you're doing it wrong and are being hypocritical. ISIS wouldn't exist without their ideology, that's the stumbling block. To hate the people themselves is to remove rationality from the debate.

    Big words small actions, you always have the least to fear from a loudmouth - five years of martial arts has always shown this to be true. Also that's weirdly narcissistic and a totally unjustified load of tripe.

    (a) Irrational - demonstrate this
    (b) Sexist (against my own sex? Ok then) Also demonstrate this
    (c) Misandric (against my own sex? Ok then) Also demonstrate this
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Is gravity a force though...? Or is it the artifact of curvature of spacetime? Is it the fundamental interaction of mass? What is gravity?

    We most certainly do define what gravity is based on current understanding. That current understanding could be completely wrong to what 'the objective truth' actually is. The 'objective truth' is extremely hard, and sometimes impossible to discover.
    That's irrelevant to whether it exists objectively or not. There's an answer we just don't know it.

    I agree it can be an arse to find such truth but it does fundamentally exist.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Big words small actions, you always have the least to fear from a loudmouth - five years of martial arts has always shown this to be true.
    I'd rather get my ass handed to me by Bruce Lee, than face somebody like Conor Mcgregor in the cage.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    That's irrelevant to whether it exists objectively or not. There's an answer we just don't know it.

    I agree it can be an arse to find such truth but it does fundamentally exist.
    Whether something exists objectively or not is a key concept in inverse theory. It's appropriately named 'Existence'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Whether something exists objectively or not is a key concept in inverse theory. It's appropriately named 'Existence'.
    Maybe I'm reading it too simplistically but it sounds like a load of *******s to me.

    It doesnt invalidate that there is an objective truth, just that we may not even see the right way to measure said truth. It's very much quantum theory in its logic which is not a compliment.

    Also that is sort of the 'overly academic approach' in so far as extracting a concept ad absurdum. Obviously gravity exists. Objectively. It might not be in any way like what we conceive gravity to be, we might accidentally not even be measuring gravity but it is still objectively the force which objectively keeps us from floating. Just because we are incompetent and can't necessarily see that truth doesn't mean there isn't one objective truth. For example at the start of a horse race, say eight horses can win. This is a certainty. Either one of the horses will win or none will finish. These are the only outcomes. We cannot predict what will happen with certainty, but once the race finishes there will be one objective truth about the outcome of the race. People may erase it from history, lie, they may have measured a totally different race, but that one objective truth is still constant.

    (Original post by hezzlington)
    I'd rather get my ass handed to me by Bruce Lee, than face somebody like Conor Mcgregor in the cage.
    Haha Lee was more badass than McGregor. He basically formed the UFC.

    There are hundreds of videos of loudmouths playing kiss the concrete because, a general rule of psychology is, people who posture and show off have sod all to protect themselves with and know it. This is true from peacocks to humans. Despite common depiction, bears can't even roar because they don't need to make a sound - they're 800lbs of killer. A lizard however throws up some silly frill and gets eaten anyway.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Getting back to the OP, I think it was more right than wrong.

    There's a lot of hate around. But no-one discusses WHY.

    Hatred is one of life's great pleasures. As is love, its close sibling.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Who said science finds the objective truth? That's incorrect. Science simply exists to explain the phenomena that we perceive. This doesn't mean this is an absolute law at all. A lot of scientific 'laws' are statistical andnot absolute, a notable one being the second law of thermodynamics. Science is a man-made construct created by 'above average primates on a clump on rock orbiting an average size star in one of the billion galaxies seen in the observable universe'. It can be used to explain statistical phenomena that are true for most frames of references by using certain principles as being true (axioms) and then this explanation can be used to predict the phenomena in other frames of reference.

    An attempt at attaining total objectivity would, in fact, give you a paradox. For any statement to be 'objectively' true it would require verification from a frame of reference outside of a system where the statement appears to be true in all frames of reference within the set system. However, then we cannot claim this verification is now objectively true as the statement may or may not be true for the observer outside of this set system. Since a completely objectively true statement needs to be true in every frame of reference it needs to be verified from every frame of reference and this verification comes from someone outside of the system in which case the law isn't objective as we have no way of verifying it in this frame of reference unless we include this frame into the system and introduce another frame of reference outside this new system but again this just leads to an infinite cycle and it becomes impossible to label something as 'truly objective'

    Also, consider the fact that every single scientific and mathematic law comes from set axioms. For example to prove nearly any mathematical proof you would often assume that 1+1 = 2. How can we know for certain that this is true? Even if someone proves this they must have assumed that something must be true. This leads to an infinite regress so we eventually come to a point where there exist the most fundamental axioms such as the 'Law of non-contradiction' which we have no way of proving but take to be true when it may not be. Since all our other proofs are dependent on some axioms that cannot be proved, all our proofs are only valid for as long as this axiom isn't disproved. For example:
    The law of non-contradiction is summarised by saying the statements A=B and A!=B (not equals to) cannot be mutually exclusive statements. A cannot equal and not equal B at the same time/in a given situation. How can we verify this statement is true? Logic? Another manmade construct... Intuition? Most scientists know that intuition isn't the best way to go about science, especially when the intrinsic nature of science can often be anything but 'intuitive'. You can attempt to use observational evidence, but what one observes can also be argued to be subjective. So devising an objective statement from subjective viewpoints seems to be rather counter-intuitive.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Maybe I'm reading it too simplistically but it sounds like a load of *******s to me.

    It doesnt invalidate that there is an objective truth, just that we may not even see the right way to measure said truth. It's very much quantum theory in its logic which is not a compliment.

    Also that is sort of the 'overly academic approach' in so far as extracting a concept ad absurdum. Obviously gravity exists. Objectively. It might not be in any way like what we conceive gravity to be, we might accidentally not even be measuring gravity but it is still objectively the force which objectively keeps us from floating. Just because we are incompetent and can't necessarily see that truth doesn't mean there isn't one objective truth. For example at the start of a horse race, say eight horses can win. This is a certainty. Either one of the horses will win or none will finish. These are the only outcomes. We cannot predict what will happen with certainty, but once the race finishes there will be one objective truth about the outcome of the race. People may erase it from history, lie, they may have measured a totally different race, but that one objective truth is still constant.



    Haha Lee was more badass than McGregor. He basically formed the UFC.

    There are hundreds of videos of loudmouths playing kiss the concrete because, a general rule of psychology is, people who posture and show off have sod all to protect themselves with and know it. This is true from peacocks to humans. Despite common depiction, bears can't even roar because they don't need to make a sound - they're 800lbs of killer. A lizard however throws up some silly frill and gets eaten anyway.
    Dude....bears can roar....
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    Dude....bears can roar....
    http://qi.com/infocloud/bears

    edit - I meant some species not bears as a whole (my fault I can't English when I'm tired), the point I was getting at is something that can kill you easily doesn't make a song and dance about it in nature as a general rule. A lion doesn't make a load of noise before it kills a gazelle, noise is an intimidation tactic to try and prevent confrontation which is why male lions do a ritualistic roar and why two animals of the same species usually make a song and dance to try and avoid the fight because they know they could be killed.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I was making a more general point. If you hate the people (you replied to 'So you'd hate all muslims' in the affirmative) then you're doing it wrong and are being hypocritical. ISIS wouldn't exist without their ideology, that's the stumbling block. To hate the people themselves is to remove rationality from the debate.
    My friend, you are way off. I was referring to a distinct ideology (ISIS). I wasn't referring to Islam or those who do not support ISIS within Islam. Hating ISIS does not by proxy mean you hate muslims. it is important to understand that Islam is not one religion with one voice. Islam is many religions. It is made up of many varying ideologies that follow very contrasting beliefs. ISIS is a distinct ideology within Islam. Hating ISIS is hating only ISIS ideology and its followers/supporters.

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    (a) Irrational - demonstrate this
    (b) Sexist (against my own sex? Ok then) Also demonstrate this
    (c) Misandric (against my own sex? Ok then) Also demonstrate this
    a) OK
    b) OK
    c) OK

    You ask the question "against my own sex?" almost as if you are implying through this question that somehow your male gender makes you immune to misandry....My friend, many jews fought alongside and helped hitler in the second world war. Many africans bought and sold african slaves during the slavery trade....people sometimes, through their ignorance, contribute to the sexism, racism and victimisation of their own.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I look down on people who clearly haven't read about the topic they're discussing but rather, they're just expressing their prejudices and experiences based on anecdotal evidence.

    That's the only group I dislike. Nothing against the rich, Scots, natives, etc.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hezzlington)
    That's a load of waffle so I'll give that one a miss.
    Its not a load of waffle hezzlington. It is very difficult to understand ....let me break it down:

    Drewski's says: Evil is subjective. What is evil in my eyes and by my standards might be good in the eyes of someone else. I might think that ISIS is evil. ISIS followers and supporters think that it is not. So I have no justification for my hate towards evils because evil is subjective and those evils can actually be not evil.

    My counter argument: Evil is not subjective. It cannot be both evil and not evil at the same time. These are two contradictory views. Accepting one means falsifying the other. That is logic. So things can either be evil or not evil. If we determine that the universal truth for ISIS is that it is evil then it is evil regardless of what its followers believe....

    (Original post by hezzlington)
    In what way do you act against feminism/nazism?
    Action in the form of protest can take many forms. It all depends on the circumstances. What we are doing her is action. We are raising awareness about gender issues. A few months ago nobody was talking about these issues on this forum....A few months ago nobody new that women cannot be charged with rape in this country....today almost every thread is discussing gender issues, sexism against men and the ills of feminism and every thread has a reference to the sexist state of our rape laws. ......This is action.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Therec00)
    Rich and poor

    Remainers and leavers

    Skinny and fat

    Young and old

    Brits and Scottish Independents

    Black and white

    Muslims and non Muslims

    Men and women (feminism)

    Immigrants and non immigrants
    Speak for yourself. Is this just your hate list.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    We live in a world where reality is independent of our thoughts. ....we can think that the world is flat. That subjective opinion does not change the reality that our world is oval. As in, there is one universal truth. If our subjective opinions do not conform with this truth...they are wrong.
    Not everything is independent of our thoughts.

    Whether something is "good" or "evil" depends entirely on whether we like it or dislike it. These concepts rely upon our thoughts to exist. If none of us were around, the world would still be oval, but there would be no such thing as "good" or "evil". Events would just be different configurations of all the universe's atoms, none better or worse than any other.

    My counter argument: Evil is not subjective. It cannot be both evil and not evil at the same time. These are two contradictory views. Accepting one means falsifying the other. That is logic. So things can either be evil or not evil. If we determine that the universal truth for ISIS is that it is evil then it is evil regardless of what its followers believe...
    "Evil" is not an objective concept.

    If you say that X is evil, you're not actually describing any intrinsic quality of X, you're actually just describing the fact that you dislike X. But someone else might like X and therefore be equally correct to say that it's good.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    My friend, you are way off. I was referring to a distinct ideology (ISIS). I wasn't referring to Islam or those who do not support ISIS within Islam. Hating ISIS does not by proxy mean you hate muslims. it is important to understand that Islam is not one religion with one voice. Islam is many religions. It is made up of many varying ideologies that follow very contrasting beliefs. ISIS is a distinct ideology within Islam. Hating ISIS is hating only ISIS ideology and its followers/supporters.



    a) OK
    b) OK
    c) OK

    You ask the question "against my own sex?" almost as if you are implying through this question that somehow your male gender makes you immune to misandry....My friend, many jews fought alongside and helped hitler in the second world war. Many africans bought and sold african slaves during the slavery trade....people sometimes, through their ignorance, contribute to the sexism, racism and victimisation of their own.
    Yes agreed. You worded it wrong which is why everyone responded the same way.

    A,B and C - Still waiting

    Yes but misandry is hatred of men. If you hate what you are then you're mentally unstable (according to the psychological journal) - the African thing was tribalism. They didn't see themselves as a collective. The Jews helped not because they wanted to but because it prevented them being murdered - see also 'group therapy' in Maoist China where people had to abuse their colleagues for 'wrongthink' despite it destroying them emotionally. Simplifying those issues down as you have done is just misleading.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Its not a load of waffle hezzlington. It is very difficult to understand ....let me break it down:

    Drewski's says: Evil is subjective. What is evil in my eyes and by my standards might be good in the eyes of someone else. I might think that ISIS is evil. ISIS followers and supporters think that it is not. So I have no justification for my hate towards evils because evil is subjective and those evils can actually be not evil.

    My counter argument: Evil is not subjective. It cannot be both evil and not evil at the same time. These are two contradictory views. Accepting one means falsifying the other. That is logic. So things can either be evil or not evil. If we determine that the universal truth for ISIS is that it is evil then it is evil regardless of what its followers believe....
    You're not as smart as you think you are, this whole holier than thou attitude is tiresome and ridiculous 'It is very difficult to understand ....let me break it down'

    In relation to that point, so what is our objective measure of what is evil then? If its fixed there's a fixed criterion. Demonstrate this. You talk in fallacies and sophistry it's simplification to claim everything can only be binary and then under your own prefixed criteria that your binary is more correct for example the principle 'it cannot be subjective because it cannot be evil and not evil' means it's a paradox and thus untrue. Not in the context of the individual as he places it. ISIS self evidently don't think they're evil yet some people do so this, along with many other examples of hypothetical philosophy, demonstrate human propensity to view evil as subjective. That may be true or untrue but your argument actually has nothing to do with his and doesn't demonstrate the 'objective evil' you've established.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    A,B and C - Still waiting
    The reply I am writing for your comment and I am almost done with it is extremely long. I'm hoping that it will help you look at life with a different perspective. I hope that you will engage with it in a fair and mature way and not be stubborn and argue for arguments sake, which is a feeling I am starting to get from you now.

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Yes but misandry is hatred of men. If you hate what you are then you're mentally unstable (according to the psychological journal) - the African thing was tribalism. They didn't see themselves as a collective. The Jews helped not because they wanted to but because it prevented them being murdered - see also 'group therapy' in Maoist China where people had to abuse their colleagues for 'wrongthink' despite it destroying them emotionally. Simplifying those issues down as you have done is just misleading.
    Misadnry is not is not simply a feeling. the outcome of my actions can be misandric irrespective of whether I feel a hatred towards my gender or not. Your actions can be misandric. Your actions can empower misandry....Your comment empowers misandry through ignorance and I will show you this in my reply to you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    The reply I am writing for your comment and I am almost done with it is extremely long. I'm hoping that it will help you look at life from a different perspective. I hope that you will engage with it in a fair and mature way and not be stubborn and argue for arguments sake, which is a feeling I am starting to get from you now.



    Misadnry is not is not simply a feeling. the outcome of my actions can be misandric irrespective of whether I feel a hatred towards my gender or not. Your actions can be misandric. Your actions can empower misandry....Your comment empowers misandry through ignorance and I will show you this in my reply to you.
    If you prevent actual facts I'll review them fairly. If you present sophistry and big-headedness then I'll be facetious in reply. Again with this weird messianic nonsense 'I hope it'll make you look at life from a different perspective'. You're not a life coach. Any statement beyond I'm presenting evidence for your consideration in this instance is excessive and this whole 'I am coming down from mount olympus to educate you' attitude is annoying.


    misandry
    mɪˈsandri/noun
    1. dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex).


    Not according to the dictionary
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.