Who "Owns" Old PC's?

reapersaurus said:
What the .... HELL happened here?!

;)

It was kinda like a philosophical train wreck. Without the train. or the wreck. or even really, i guess, philosopy.

it was a philosophical train wreck without the train, the wreck, or the philosophy.

yes. that's what it was.

yes...


joe b.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whoa... that's, like, deep 'n stuff. :D

Nifty thread, folks. And no flames! That's the kind of hijack I don't mind seeing now and again. :)
 

reapersaurus said:
What the .... HELL happened here?!

;)

We got into the deep thinking of a theoretical person in a theoretical situation about who owned the theoretical character sheet, then we threw out the person, the situation and the character sheet and just kept the theoretical part. Then we threw that out and got into a discussion about whether jgbrowning was a threat to society.:confused:
 
Last edited:

Kahuna Burger said:
I suppose since I wasn't emotional when I wrote the response, its hard for me to give him kudos for accusing me of emotionalism then 'ignoring' it.
I never suggested you give him kudos. I just noted that you accused him of dismissing you -- which he patently did not do -- and then dismissed him yourself.
I suppose you could take acknowlegement that some people don't get along and that its best to find this out before you start personal interactions with them as a veiled insult... of course since most of those people had previously made comments like "I'm so glad I don't game with any of you" and "tell him to seek psychiatric help" I'm a little confused as to the responses to my mild comments.
I didn't mean to imply that your comments were wild and outrageous statements, nor even that they were out of line with previously made statements in this thread. Only that they seemed to me to express a good deal of emotion. Perhaps you thought you were being dispassionate and clear-headed, but actually you don't get to decide that. Your readers do.

I'm interested in why you think jgbrowning's notions are socially unhealthy. Or even unrealistic.
 

barsoomcore said:

Only that they seemed to me to express a good deal of emotion. Perhaps you thought you were being dispassionate and clear-headed, but actually you don't get to decide that. Your readers do.

Er, no. You can certainly decide that they provoked a great deal of emotion, but in no way to my readers decide for me what my emotional state was.

I have been known to have an overly dramatic writing style, esp in debates. But in retrospect, brownings responses were pretty amusing in that they ran against the grain of the philosophy that started the whole thing. Anyway, sorry, no dice. I'm sorry if my words provoked a greater emotional response than intended (and unlike browning I will readily admit that my words can have an effect) but you cannot tell me if I am "reacting emotionally" or not.

I'm interested in why you think jgbrowning's notions are socially unhealthy. Or even unrealistic.

Seems like you're a page late, and I won't be repeating everything I and browning have said. Its well spelled out, and I wasn't even the one who said his philosophy was a fine line away from psychosis... ;)

Kahuna Burger
 

My thoughts on all this (cause I know you're terribly interested):

I agree, by and large, with jgbrowning. People's emotions are their problems and they are responsible for how they feel.

First and foremost, my own. The primary corollary of the above notion is the idea that I am responsible for my emotions. They are mine to control. They are not the fault of anyone else.

Happiness is as simple as asking for it. I am happy unless I choose to feel otherwise or unless I forget my ability to understand.

There's a funny notion that things like grief or anger are incompatible with happiness. To me, happiness is not a transitory thing that comes and goes. It is a bedrock upon which the rest of my emotional life builds. When I am angry, which is usually because I have surrendered understanding for a time, my happiness has not disappeared. I don't need to seek it out again. It remains with me and when the anger has passed, when understanding has returned, my happiness is still there. Because I put it there.

Here's a true funny notion: You NEVER get angry at other people. Anger at other people is displaced anger. It is a refusal to face your own failings, which causes you to blame someone else. The son crashes the car and the father expresses anger at the son when in fact he is furious with himself for having raised such an incompetent, thoughtless child. Unwilling to see his own culpability he strikes his son.

Every time I feel myself getting angry at someone I ask myself what it is that I have failed at. What it is that I could have done.

jdavis, I agree with your idea of embracing your emotions. Letting them overtake you completely -- very often what I find is that I'm getting worked up over nothing. Often when you let emotions run free you realise that you are being self-indulgent and melodramatic, and that very realisation brings one back to earth.

I guess the common thread is that applying blame to other people is useless. You can't make them accept the blame if they don't want it, and if they do want it then they've already figured it out, thanks very much. When you take on responsibility yourself, however, you can study things and make changes if they're called for. So you might as well take on responsibility for your own emotions. No other response is going to do any good.

Train wreck? Philosophy? Danger to society?
 

Kahuna Burger said:
Er, no. You can certainly decide that they provoked a great deal of emotion, but in no way to my readers decide for me what my emotional state was.
Forgive me if I said your readers get to decide what your emotional state was. I should have said they get to decide the emotional content of your writing. I have nothing to say about your emotional state.
Seems like you're a page late, and I won't be repeating everything I and browning have said. Its well spelled out, and I wasn't even the one who said his philosophy was a fine line away from psychosis... ;)
Well, the last thing I can find that you said on the subject was:
To nigh universaly declare negitive emotions a personal problem that people shouldn't 'blame' their environment for... I cannot consider this a socially healthy philosophy.
Why not? I'm sorry, but I can't find among your posts any sort of "well spelled out" description of the problem with this philosophy. I find that you consider the ability to ignore pain potentially harmful since pain sends us important signals about what's happening to our body. Well and good, but not really the point since jgbrowning was talking about emotional responses more than physical responses. You made an analogue to this with an emotional situation where the fact that interacting with someone produces bad feelings in you indicates that you should no longer interact with them.

So is it that you are saying that learning to control one's emotions and take responsibility for them might lead to people hanging out with those who are rude to them? Or is it that you think that avoiding people who say things we don't want to hear is an important part of a healthy society? I doubt either is the case but I cannot determine what you might actually be trying to say.

So I guess once again we come to the point that you don't get to decide what is "well spelled out" -- your readers do.
 

barsoomcore said:

Here's a true funny notion: You NEVER get angry at other people. Anger at other people is displaced anger. It is a refusal to face your own failings, which causes you to blame someone else. The son crashes the car and the father expresses anger at the son when in fact he is furious with himself for having raised such an incompetent, thoughtless child. Unwilling to see his own culpability he strikes his son.

To say that I think you are wrong on this point would be a hideous understatement. To say what I think about this would risk the thread getting (rightly) closed. So I shall simply say that it is clear you and I have nothing of value to say to each other. :(

Your commentary also gives me ample reason not to waste my time spelling out my perspective any more than I already have. You are not going to 'get it' any more than I can comprehend the mindset that would come up with this as a universal statement.

Kahuna Burger
 

barsoomcore said:
My thoughts on all this (cause I know you're terribly interested):

jdavis, I agree with your idea of embracing your emotions. Letting them overtake you completely -- very often what I find is that I'm getting worked up over nothing. Often when you let emotions run free you realise that you are being self-indulgent and melodramatic, and that very realisation brings one back to earth.

Train wreck? Philosophy? Danger to society?

My problem is I don't know when to let it go, I get to the point where I realize that i'm worked up over nothing but I just can't let it go, I would hate to call it genetic but it is someting that runs in my family. I try not to take anything personal or let stuff get under my skin because if I do it really gets bad. I find all this interesting because the control everyone here has talked about (regardless of their methods or which side of the arguement they are on) is something fundamentally lacking in me, it's like a faucet that you can never turn all the way off. Embracing my emotions and not fighting against them was for survival, I can get myself worked up to the point where I am in true danger of having a stroke over very minor things, so instead I just ride it out, people who know me know to never take it personal. I almost killed my dog once for peeing on my foot, I mean I completly lost it, I had to remove myself to a dark room for two hours. That's not any way to go through life, so I just vent steam every once in a while and try to ride the emotional tidal wave without it getting more than skin deep. I had two choices live in constant emotional turmoil or just go with the flow. (the dog, {60 pound lab/chow mix}, is fine by the way, and well house broken now too)
 

The son crashes the car and the father expresses anger at the son when in fact he is furious with himself for having raised such an incompetent, thoughtless child. Unwilling to see his own culpability he strikes his son.

You should blame the car company. I mean it was obviously their fault. I'd get a lawyer, and while your at it sue the people who created the Gran Turismo games, if it wasn't for those he would of never been driving like a madman, they warped his mind.:D
 

Remove ads

Top