Obligation toward declared superiority

i wouldnt have a foggy mate im leaving this forum i had fun
was nice here with you nice people but i cant stand personal insults on my language thing
so i bewt leave and that will make things better for people if i never say a word that way no one gets confused
and i deleted all the net things so i cant come back again
and superior i wouldnt have a clue about that
think more like its a curse on sumone cause they are open to attack their is always sumone trying to be better than them
is best left alone
 
Sarkus said:
The Bible was very clever in trying to disparage those who require evidence - in the story of "Doubting Thomas" - where seeking evidence is seen as something shameful.
But it is those who fail to seek evidence, those who blindly follow, that should be shamed - for disregarding one of the tools that evolution has given them - the ability to reason.
Click to expand...

You speak as if the Bible were Alive...basically It's your word against His Word. Wanna guess who's going to be proven to be the liar?

Those that blindly follow will be shamed...those who trust and blindly follow their own understanding...those who value the praise of men rather than the praise of God...these will be shamed...such is the obligation of those declaring their superiority over the Word of God.
 
Sarkus said:
And then the question is one of how much evidence would an individual need to be convinced of the claim - and that is an entirely subjective matter - although one must of course rationally (and hopefully objectively) assess the evidence.
Click to expand...

I think as soon as one would take up pursuing evidentiary support of their superiority, one would actually be playing their game. Which is exactly what they might want. All that they might really want is to engage you somehow, to get your attention, and a declaration of superiority can be a good tool to get that. (I wonder how come?)



Plus there is the risk / reward pay-off (cf. Pascal's Wager) - how much would you gain if you followed, given level of evidence available, compared to what you would lose if you didn't.
Click to expand...

Good point. But I'll argue that in the case of declared moral, cognitive, spiritual superiority the risk-reward pay-off doesn't apply. Namely:

If one is truly inferior, then one cannot adequately recognize or assess superiority.

So regardless if one would make a decision to subject oneself or refuse to do so, it would necessarily be a decision which is beyond one's competence. It would be a decision based on blind faith.

So even if the other person were truly superior, one would be unable to reap the benefits nor beware of the risks, because one's relationship with them would be defined by the decision beyond one's competence, by blind faith - ie. one wouldn't have the competence to reap the rewards and beware the risks.
 
Guess I'll shrink back into my mollusc like shell then and cower before the devine brightness and clearly superior one who( that?) makes my god given life here pale into insignificance by comparison to his FUCKING omnipresence!
 
* pssst, while Photizo is away writing reams of unintelligable crap, here's a joke: Why did Photizo cross the road? To pick up the thread where he left off!!!*
 
Photizo said:
Better yet, call on the mountains to cover you up like it says in Revelation...
Click to expand...

Last time I had a revelation, I got arreseted for indecent exposure,
cover me up with mountains and shit! I love a good cave session!
 
Photizo said:
One day you'll be arrested to provide indecent exposure.
Click to expand...

Whoa! Bailed up at the pearly gates! " Show us ya piles Heathen"

Spud " I'm just trying to pass this bloody great aubergine yer 'ighness...Lord god on high,...I mean Up High!, Fark, I'll never get this right will i?"

" No, my son, ye shall burneth in eternal hellfire you pathetic ignoramus who i made in my likeness....Whoops,... strike that... Don't hit send... Spud i Verily implore You!... STOPPP!"

" Sorry Photizo, the Devil possessed me"
 
greenberg said:
I think as soon as one would take up pursuing evidentiary support of their superiority, one would actually be playing their game.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would be a matter of pursuing - as that implies action of the would-be subject. The onus is surely on the claimant to produce what is necessary to support their claim.

If one is truly inferior, then one cannot adequately recognize or assess superiority.
Click to expand...
Then the question is totally moot.
Firstly, being truly inferior does not necessarily imply that one can not adequately recognise or assess superiority.

Further, if one can not recognise nor assess the superiority - then how is it actually superior, rather than just being different? And to what end does the claim of "superiority" lead?

If I can not assess the superiority - how will it affect me?
Surely the benefit of the superiority can... and should... be demonstrated - or it is of no value.

I think I am leading to the fact that superiority MUST have value - or it is not superior... and value MUST be able to be demonstrated.

Assume we are all intellectually superior to a caveman - and we claim as much to them. How will it impact them? Perhaps you can rattle off thermodynamic equations - but to them it means zip.
But, if you can show them better ways to do things they need - i.e. add VALUE through your superiority... then your claim means something.

Otherwise it is a meaningless claim.
There must surely therefore be evidence to support the claim - or it is irrelevant.

So regardless if one would make a decision to subject oneself or refuse to do so, it would necessarily be a decision which is beyond one's competence. It would be a decision based on blind faith.
Click to expand...
If no benefit / value can be demonstrated - it is an irrelevant claim.
 
greenberg said:
All that they might really want is to engage you somehow, to get your attention, and a declaration of superiority can be a good tool to get that. (I wonder how come?)
Click to expand...


Denying self-doubt, mixed responses, concerns about possible problems, complexity has, unfortunately worked rather well, at least on the surface. When someone presents themselves as confident and absolutely sure, other people who more complex and open relationships with their emotions and reactions tend to assume(project) that the other person must have been as thorough as they would have been before making such an utterance. So there is a near instinctive urge to give away power.

Another way to put this is we have been trained not to acknowledge our own insights.
 
greenberg said:
If one is truly inferior, then one cannot adequately recognize or assess superiority.
Click to expand...
This is what I was trying to say.
Related is how irritated I have gotten at times with Christians, for example, who seem to think they are NOT making an enormous claim about their own intuitive abilities when they say the Bible is completely true or God's word. It is as if the decision to follow the book is simply listening. When in fact it is a very pompous claim about their own skills. Pompous claims can be correct. But the slimy way it is denied that they are making a personal pompous claim, is where the rub is for me.
 
redarmy11 said:
ok, I'll say it, since the rest of you dumbasses can't work it out.

Ther superior 'person' is God. There. Now get down on your knees and pray. Pray before God for your worthless, maggot-infested souls.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem very superior.

Oh wait, it does.
 
Sarkus said:
I don't think it would be a matter of pursuing - as that implies action of the would-be subject. The onus is surely on the claimant to produce what is necessary to support their claim.
Click to expand...

Note that this is about moral, cognitive and spiritual superiority. The claimant could simply say that even if he produced evidence of his superiority, the inferior couldn't properly assess it, due to their inferiority.

Things would be clear and easy if it was about physical or financial superiority, though.


If I can not assess the superiority - how will it affect me?
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why I argued that subjecting oneself to declared superiority will not reap benefits.


If no benefit / value can be demonstrated - it is an irrelevant claim.
Click to expand...

Still, this would mean that one would give the claimant the benefit of the doubt and pay them at least some attention - on the grounds of declared superiority.
 
Grantywanty said:
When someone presents themselves as confident and absolutely sure, other people who more complex and open relationships with their emotions and reactions tend to assume(project) that the other person must have been as thorough as they would have been before making such an utterance. So there is a near instinctive urge to give away power.
Click to expand...

Yes, honesty can be an extremely vulnerable spot.


Another way to put this is we have been trained not to acknowledge our own insights.
Click to expand...

That too. Or, our honesty can be blind.
 
greenberg said:
Note that this is about moral, cognitive and spiritual superiority. The claimant could simply say that even if he produced evidence of his superiority, the inferior couldn't properly assess it, due to their inferiority.

Things would be clear and easy if it was about physical or financial superiority, though.
Click to expand...
Sure - but the principal is still the same. If one can not assess the superiority (due to the inferior position) then it is a meaningless superiority - UNLESS one can demonstrate the benefits of that superiority - which while not being direct evidence of superiority in the thing claimed, is at least of benefit.

Exactly. That's why I argued that subjecting oneself to declared superiority will not reap benefits.
Click to expand...
I would agree - but amend it slightly for clarification to what I think you mean: "subjecting oneself to declared superiority alone will not reap benefits" - i.e. if the claimant merely claims - it is meaningless. A case of "put up or shut up". :)

Still, this would mean that one would give the claimant the benefit of the doubt and pay them at least some attention - on the grounds of declared superiority.
Click to expand...
Sure - the declaration often comes before action. Give a declaration time to form into benefit.
The amount of time would be a subjective assessment of risk / reward - i.e. how much time do you wait with merely the declaration and no benefit? Some people would queue up for hours just for a chance of getting tickets to their favourite band. Others would see the hours wasted as too much risk for the eventual reward.

But in all this - there has to be evidence - in this case, evidence of the superiority through demonstrable benefit.
 
greenberg said:
Yes, honesty can be an extremely vulnerable spot.




That too. Or, our honesty can be blind.
Click to expand...

And in both of these I have found a guilt about discriminating between individuals. I would be bad if I formed impressions about who has their head up their ass, especially if they seem to make sense and have some brains or talent of some kind.

How the fuck dare I be open and honest with this person and not with this other?

Who am I to judge?

It's like pretending I can't see only worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top