Am I a heartless asshole?

[Dr_Watson]

jesus fucking christ on bike jules... stop being a cock.

if you can understand people being so attached to pricess fluffybottom how can you not see that while YGP is an asshole, he is entitled to his opinion on this. this is a discussion about VALUES not LOGIC.
there is NO ONE ANSWER; philosophy and human psycology are not hard science.
the grass is not green, there are four lights, and everyone does not need to be convinced that your world view is the only world view. get off the high horse and accept it.

[[xeno]Julios]

jesus fucking christ on bike jules... stop being a cock.
this is a discussion about VALUES not LOGIC.
there is NO ONE ANSWER; philosophy and human psycology are not hard science.
the grass is not green, there are four lights, and everyone does not need to be convinced that the your world view is the only world view. get off the high horse and accept it.

You're misunderstanding something here.

YGP actually agreed with points 1,2 and 3, yet not with 4.

I'm not trying to force down my world view - i'm trying to understand how he could not accept 4, while accepting 1,2 and 3.

I'm forcing him to articulate exactly how he could do this.

It's a socratic method of questioning.

There may indeed be ways to accept 1,2,3 but not 4, but I want him to be explicit about it.

[[xeno]Julios]

for reference, here are the four points again:

1) Some people form legitimate, genuine, bonds with non human companions.

2) For some of these people, the death of this companion causes intense emotional suffering.

3) This emotional suffering is so severe, that they could really use a day in their own space to come to terms with their new reality.

4) A manager should recognize this possibility, and, in looking out for the well being of her employees, should not look down upon him when he asks for an emergency day of leave due to point 3).

I agree with 1 and 2. 3 and 4 is where my opinion differs.

I'm going for a meeting of minds approach here - which requires intense engagement. A high resolution look at where our intuitions differ.

If they are unresolvable, so be it, but it's a worthy pursuit to find out exactly where they differ.

[mjrpes]

[plained]

no clue

btw i liked ur po'eemm there mr mr

[Wabbit]

4) A manager should recognize this possibility, and, in looking out for the well being of her employees, should not look down upon him when he asks for an emergency day of leave due to point 3.

Your fourth point fails jules. You can't use logic to determine how people "should" feel. There could be any number of reasons why he feels the way he does about it. As long as he follows the proper course in dealing with the situation (i.e., not firing the person for it, etc.) then that's all that can be expected of him.

[Dr_Watson]

so now you're pretending your Socrates?

this is loaded questioning... not Socratic
you're not leading anyone to the truth, there are no prejudices that need to be broken down.
see... your points 1-3 have nothing to do with 4.
1-3 are factual observations of human behavior, paradigms that any reasonable person who is capable of rational thought will accept.

4 is a question of values; one that you and YGP differ on.
it has been plain from post #1 that under the YGP school of managerial philosophy and work ethic, 1-3 happen and are real, but he feels them to be irrational and silly.
so, it is entirely possible to accept that 1-3 do exist, but think 4 is bullshit.. because 1-3 are signs of character weakness.
in his world, if an employee doesn't want to be looked down on for requiring bereavement for captain squiggle-paws; he should say he can't come in for "personal reasons"; or give no reason at all.
you get judged when you release personal reasons for anything. that’s the simple causality of human nature; we judge others by our own belief structure.

[[xeno]Julios]

so, it is entirely possible to accept that 1-3 do exist, but think 4 is bullshit.. because 1-3 are signs of character weakness.

ok, so now the dialogue can progress.

btw notice that I used the word "legitimate" and "genuine" to describe the bonds that are made, precluding a character weakness that one could ascribe to a bond someone claimed to have with their car.

I assumed that YGP understood this - and that the emotional suffering they endured was not a sign of character weakness.

This is why dialogue is so important - so that these unspoken assumptions can be brought into sharp relief.

And i'm not pretending to be socrates - i'm just using the method for which is was well known.

And socrates didn't use this method as a display of arrogance - he used it because it is a damn effective way at getting to the heart of a disagreement, or an opionin/belief/intuition.

So that's what I'm trying to do here - I'm trying to discover exactly where YGP's differing values derive from.

I don't think people should be able to get away by saying "my values differ"

We need to examine those values in more detail.

Hitler had values which differed from ours - and those values derived from mistaken factual propositions which he held to be true - propositions about the supremacy of a certain class of genotypes.

Now obviously the consequences of these values are far more severe than the consequences of the values YGP has, but it would be kind of absurd if someone said :

he has differing values - stop trying to find out why

[Wabbit]

So that's what I'm trying to do here - I'm trying to discover exactly where YGP's differing values derive from.

That sounds real personal. It's possible he was looking more for a "yes, you're an asshole; no, you're not an asshole" type response rather than getting that deeply into his psyche. Maybe he'll open up to you in pm's.

[Dr_Watson]

it's a very bad sign when even I think you're showing signs of being an elitist cunt.
i mean come on... i'll be the first to admit my horse is so high i can lick the moon; but you're line of "discussion" in this thread is even making me cringe.

you may want to consider smoking some bud and giving your ass a good scrubbing while you mull over the course this debate has taken.

[[xeno]Julios]

it's a very bad sign when even I think you're showing signs of being an elitist cunt.
i mean come on... i'll be the first to admit my horse is so high i can lick the moon; but you're line of "discussion" in this thread is even making me cringe.

you may want to consider smoking some bud and giving your ass a good scrubbing while you mull over the course this debate has taken.

You're completely misunderstanding me - I engage in this sort of discussion with my closest friends. It's nothing to do with elitism.

[plained]

nobody understands you i guess

ur way way to smart prolly

[plained]

you asked me a question i see

no, its my way of saying that maybe if i was "smarter" i'd natually agree with jules

because the only reason you will not agree is cuz u doen grasp it ey

ive always been under the impression that someone who knows what theyer doing, can do it easily and clear for others to see

[CaseDogg]

if it was a dog they had for a long time that can have certain people fuck up. but if it was a fuckin gerble they had in they booty then they needa bring they ass to work with or without limenywinks in they booty.

edit cuz i cant spell.

[plained]

if it was a dog they had for a long time that can have certain people fuck up. but if it was a fuckin gerble they had in they booty then they needa bring they ass to work with or without limenywinks in they booty.

heeh ehe

[CaseDogg]

you asked me a question i see

no, its my way of saying that maybe if i was "smarter" i'd natually agree with jules

because the only reason you will not agree is cuz u doen grasp it ey

ive always been under the impression that someone who knows what theyer doing, can do it easily and clear for others to see

but you're not smarter, you're a fucking mong who cannot seem to spell the simplest of words

i never once said i was smart cuzzo.

[CaseDogg]

o, you wasnt talkin to me. my bad.

[plained]

you asked me a question i see

no, its my way of saying that maybe if i was "smarter" i'd natually agree with jules

because the only reason you will not agree is cuz u doen grasp it ey

ive always been under the impression that someone who knows what theyer doing, can do it easily and clear for others to see

but you're not smarter, you're a fucking mong who cannot seem to spell the simplest of words

well i dumb , but i can read

[[xeno]Julios]

So that's what I'm trying to do here - I'm trying to discover exactly where YGP's differing values derive from.

That sounds real personal. It's possible he was looking more for a "yes, you're an asshole; no, you're not an asshole" type response rather than getting that deeply into his psyche. Maybe he'll open up to you in pm's.

wabbit - i'm not asking ygp to confess about the time he was molested by a couple of peta activists.

Values don't come out of nowhere - they should be derived from certain features of reality.

The reason we value being able to take time off work if a loved spouse dies is because we realize that such an event causes intense emotional suffering, and moreoever, that such suffering is derived from a meaningful, legitimate, and genuine bond with the deceased being.

I took it that YGP accepted that some people have meaningful, legitimate, and genuine bonds with their pets, and also that the death of such an animal would therefore cause intense suffering, and that the sufferer could really use a day off (points 1,2, and 3).

I am therefore trying to understand how somoene can accept this, and yet not feel right about granting them a day off (assuming it wouldn't cause massive company stress).

As Dr. Watson has pointed out, YGP doesn't consider the bonds to be legitimate - he considers those bonds to be a sign of weakness.

If that is the case, I am genuinely curious to understand why this is illegitimate.

There are very good arguments to be made in defense of the legitimacy of such bonds, for example.

[Wabbit]

because the only reason you will not agree is cuz u doen grasp it ey

points 1-3 have nothing to do with 4.
1-3 are factual observations of human behavior ... 4 is a question of values.

I think Watson does understand Jules perfectly and he put it best (imo). You can't make the leap over to 4. It may not be elitist to try but it is coming across as very pushy.

[Wabbit]

Values don't come out of nowhere - they should be derived from certain features of reality.

It is entirely possible that YGP just hasn't thought about WHY he feels that way. He probably doesn't even give a shit. It just is the way he feels.

Most people don't examine why they feel the way they do to the extent you're looking for (or at least to the extent it appears you're looking for).

[plained]

because the only reason you will not agree is cuz u doen grasp it ey

points 1-3 have nothing to do with 4.
1-3 are factual observations of human behavior ... 4 is a question of values.

I think Watson does understand Jules perfectly and he put it best (imo). You can't make the leap over to 4. It may not be elitist to try but it is coming across as very pushy.

haha no i feel we can understand jules jus fine even tho his writing stlye is unessessarly dramma puffed up.

its jules reasoning behind why peeps doen swing his way.

that we cant understand


he is compelled to "win" or something

[Dr_Watson]

it's a very bad sign when even I think you're showing signs of being an elitist cunt.
i mean come on... i'll be the first to admit my horse is so high i can lick the moon; but you're line of "discussion" in this thread is even making me cringe.

you may want to consider smoking some bud and giving your ass a good scrubbing while you mull over the course this debate has taken.

You're completely misunderstanding me - I engage in this sort of discussion with my closest friends. It's nothing to do with elitism.

i'm not misunderstanding you; you're completely misunderstanding the situation.
I understand the point of trying to find out *why* your values differ; however what your trying to do is abusive in its current form.
in six pages of back and forth YGP didn't ask ONE time for any help in changing his views, or help seeing the other side. It's plain to see that he has come to a conclusion that is rational to him. And this isn't a hitler killing the jews value; your not a psychiatrist; and not having an intimate conversation with one of your close friends over some DMT.
What it looks like, is you attempting to exert dominance and berate another person who is unwilling to submit to your line of questioning.

you can only go in circles so long before you have to throw in the towel and agree to disagree. there is nothing wrong with difference of opinion.

[Wabbit]

its jules reasoning behind why peeps doen swing his way.

that we cant understand


he is compelled to "win" or something

I don't agree. That's not my experience. Jules is a great guy that is very into understanding things. I don't see that as needing to win.

[MKJ]

i miss hellcat