There are a lot of quotes out there that can spur a lot of intelligent discussion, so I'll be submitting one a week or so just to start discussion. I'll also be keeping them in my sig. If you want to submit yours, you can go ahead and do that.

Also, this topic doesn't have to strictly follow the quote presented, as long as the discussion is intelligent you may sway the topic into whatever you want it to.

First go:

I agree with the quote. Stuff happens and we view it as good or bad. Good and evil are only perceptions of our mind. Events are neutral. We make the situation good or bad.

If two different people were pulled over by the a police officer and lost their licenses, they will perceive the event differently. A poor single working mother with 5 children would view it in a negative light because now she has lost her transportation. A filthy rich man might laugh and think of the event in a positive light because now he finally has an excuse to give to his wife of why he should hire a chauffeur.

It is all just how we perceive what happened.

Do you think that if we really wanted to we could shape everything that happens to us in life to become joyous mentally? Even if we were the single mother with five children in that scenario, do you think that will would let us smile at the events that happened? Or would the common person require a sort of excuse for that.

I also agree with the quote. Although it's still never goes well when you tell them something to that effect when they're sad or mad. That's probably because people always are finding the need to excuse themselves of 'flaw' without actually working on the 'flaw' at hand.

I'm saying flaw loosely because just looking at your example a problem may be a pleasure for others. A flaw may be a blessing.

A single mother with five kids could look upon what happened and smile. Will would be able to make people smile upon "misfortune" (which for them wouldn't be misfortune, but it would be in the eyes of others). That way of thinking is called optimism. It's looking for the silver lining in every cloud.

It's like at the end of Monty Python's Life of Brian where all the people being crucified are singing about the "Bright side of Life".

New quote.

I don't really agree with this quote. It seems opposite to reality. In reality it seems that the purpose of life is to become mature. Why else do mature people look down on immature ones?

I think it depends on what exactly is meant by Maturity. If it's becoming more 'sophisticated' then there might be a point, as generally people more carefree about the whole perspective on life matter tend to have more free fun. They are immature, per say, hell, technically they could be the most mature people of us all, but they just don't like conforming with the idea of stereotypical life. I know I feel that way all the time.

Of course, if it were to be the word Mature in the plain sense of higher logic and rationalization skills, then I would disagree completely. More logic and rationalization skills can _only_ make life better for you needs, as what's better for your personal agenda is the main factor in making those logical decisions. Still, even with that definition you have the set back of knowing what's going to happen. It really takes you off your edge if you know the end of a scary movie, right? Same thing with life.

As for mature people looking down on immature people. If they can't see that everyone has the same goal of trying to do what's best for themselves, they aren't mature. Keep in mind that doing something for somebody else intentionally is doing something for yourself. There is always something persuading you in any decision.

Well it's nice to see that Dez does this. <__<;;

Lets try one that could have different meaning depending perspective.

@DH: I think intelligent discussion is fun.

@ The Quote: One cannot define light without darkness, and vice versa. If darkness is the absence of light, then to define darkness you must have light. If light is something that illuminates, then it cannot illuminate that which is already enlightened. To have light, then one must have darkness.

Discuss.

I love that quote and agree with it.

Too much people take pointing out their flaws as a bad thing, when in reality half of the time it's just to help the person see what they're messing up with. Even when the person is aiming to be hostile, you can still learn from it. Which is easily a better thing to do than getting upset, most of the time. I guess some people would want to get upset. :S

Often we are blind to our own flaws, or simply choose not to see them. If others never point out our flaws, then we may never know of them, and if we do not know of our flaws, how can we fix them? Therefore, criticism is good.

That is not to say that we should berate others, but point out their mistakes in a proper manner.

I don't agree with it.

Sure, we can learn from people pointing out our flaws or being to us. It's just so much easier to learn other ways though, and it lets you stay friends the person you would be insulting that much easier. Helping somebody is much better than insulting them and making them work it out themselves.

For example. If somebody were to call you stupid, would you instantly try to get smarter? No, it's natural that you'd assume they don't know you well enough to say that, and by the time that it's shown consistent enough (multiple people calling you stupid) you're already at the point that you've missed out a lot of good opportunities on friendship. So instead of being the person calling them stupid, which potentially makes their life worse, just try to help them get smarter.

The quote works, but it's an inferior way of solving a simple problem.

Criticism isn't all negative. I don't know if you have ever heard of the phrase "Constructive Criticism" or not. When criticizing, one shouldn't insult the person, but make suggestions and say what need to be fixed.

Calling someone stupid isn't criticizing them, that is insulting them. To criticize, I would say that they should pay more attention or that they need to try harder in school.

Your argument is flawed already. Calling somebody stupid and saying that they need to try harder in school are two completely different things. One designates their overall appeal in knowledge and the other one designates on how hard they work in an academic atmosphere. It's like comparing a black-hole to a pencil. However, lets not go into tangent already.

My example was simple, obviously. It wasn't to be used as a real life situation, but rather as an example. Examples for analyzing subjects such as these are generally better kept simple and without as many outside variables affecting it as possible. See last paragraph. Calling somebody stupid is indeed criticism, and any other message that would get across the exact same amount of force would have to have the exact same amount of force.

If you still aren't getting it, consider this, if somebody were to say that you are a little stupider than normal, then the person would only (eventually) try a little bit (see last post for details), if they were to say they were extremely below average then they would try harder.

Basically, criticism is always constructive, and always highlighting flaws. It isn't something that can be labeled negative or positive, as everything is following a single line, rather than being able to go back and forth on it. If you mean how much offense somebody takes to the comment, that's merely judgment. It's not a universal rule or plays any part in the logic behind criticism. It's simply how much is the person willing to change their outlook.

Now, even if all criticism wasn't negative (which it is), that doesn't even being to counter helping somebody as being superior.

What are you talking about? :?

When I said negative or positive I was meaning it as exactly that, "negative or postive". Not, what I'm guessing you're thinking, "negative" or "postitive".

...right, I'mma let DH or Dez handle this, because I'm confused >_>

It'll probably be Dez or I'll look like a moron.

Mmm-hmmm. I pretty much agree with this quote, though I think I will make a few distinctions by arguing a couple points...

Wait a second. Criticism and insults can go hand in hand, but they are not inherently the same thing. Criticism can be insulting, but also insults can be petty and not critical.

Okay, you're right on all counts here. But I think the point you're missing is that it's ALSO an insult. Your stance was that you don't agree with Churchill's quote, which relevantly here states that "It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things." If person A is calling person B stupid, and person B is stupid, then Churchill is correct because he called attention to that. If person B is not stupid, and the statement was made with the intention of an insult, then it's not criticism and your argument means nothing, because your example of criticism isn't criticism. So either way, it kind of defeats your point...The two most important things here are the intention of the statement and how the statement was actually recieved.

No, not necessarily. That would be the "logical" course of action, but because criticism can sometimes be insulting, or because the "stupid" person doesn't trust the judgement of the critic/insulting figure, they may not try to improve.

It's not always constructive. It can always be taken constructively, but criticism can be intended to be derogatory or as an insult. Like I said, intention and reception are key. It pretty much does highlight flaws, though.

Well, how much offense is taken can determine whether the criticism is helpful or not, which is kind of important in this discussion because the quote we're talking about claims it is.

YK said what I tried to say earlier, with much more success.

Strictly speaking, criticism has a neutral denotation. But it is quite easy to add negative or positive connotations to your critiques. It depends on the delivery of the criticism and the intent. If you are trying to be insulting, then it will be negative, but if one is trying to be helpful, then the criticism will be positive.

"You look like [insert 4 lettered word]." is negative. "That hairstyle doesn't work for you." is positive.

Sorry, my previous example wasn't quite swell, but neither was your's. You example didn't fit the point that you were trying to argue. If someone was calling you stupid, they aren't pointing out your flaws so that you can become better, as the quote suggests. They are belittling you.

What would be a superior way?

This is extremely irrelevant. Nobody said anything about all insults being criticism. Rather, the other way around. You're familiar with the all insects are bugs, but not all bugs are insects analogy, right? This also goes for the next block of text you posted.

This:

The "your argument means nothing" part was ridiculous, seeing as I was far from arguing what you posted. Did you read what I said? (bolded because that question is totally serious, you're not countering what I said, but rather (accidentally?) putting words in my mouth, then countering THAT, which doesn't get anyone anywhere.)

However, you're not even right in your claims. Even if somebody called someone stupid and (by your rubric, because there sure isn't a universal one) they aren't, doesn't mean it's not criticism. It's telling the person they are showing themselves to others that they are stupid.

Here's another example of your fine selective reading:

Did you see (see last post for details) in my post? There's a chance you didn't, because you're not good at reading as proven thus far. However, assuming you read this post, I'm going to give you a shortcut and post the message you should have read before making that ridiculous counter over and over:


For example. If somebody were to call you stupid, would you instantly try to get smarter? No, it's natural that you'd assume they don't know you well enough to say that, and by the time that it's shown consistent enough (multiple people calling you stupid) you're already at the point that you've missed out a lot of good opportunities on friendship. So instead of being the person calling them stupid, which potentially makes their life worse, just try to help them get smarter.

Don't argue my points if you don't know them, please. It's quite annoying on my end.

Intention: No matter how the message was intended, if it is indeed the same message then the message will hold the same weight in all aspects on the receiving end. Seeing as we're talking about the receiving end in this debate, we can tell that intention matters not.

Reception: I already explained this fairly thoroughly. Yes, somebody may discard it, but that does not stop it from being constructive, for it will add, construct if you will, to the consistency of the message. The more times somebodies intelligence or whatever is brought into question, the more likely they will consider it. This is only natural.

However, this isn't my point at all. I don't care how people receive insults, as I'm currently in the position where I think it would be better if people just helped others than criticizing them.

Read what you said. Read what you quoted. Do it again. Then analyze why this was such an absurd thing to post.

I disagree completely. Hell, one sentence of what you say is far more debate than what he says. You've actually argued what I'm saying instead of just posting random facts nobody was talking about.

FALSE!

You're seeing both of these two scenarios as effecting the opposite person as equal, right? That would imply that they are saying the person is missing the exact same amount of worth.

Alright, I'm giving up now. I'm actually DH as you guys know and I'm too lazy to finish this.

Oh boo hoo, just when I was getting ready to type up something nice.

Dez edits my posts. Dx

Yeah, I don't really like arguing what I don't believe in, and I didn't want to be logged into my alt anymore. D:

Just doing my job.

Random quote from my philosophy class.

I like this quote.

Uh, discussion...

I think it means that, since we are human beings, then if we fail at that, then we are close or equal to nothing.
We commit inhuman acts, then that makes us inhuman itself.

I think its more of a contrast between being a human(express free choose, ability for independent ideas, creativity and so on) and being a robot(no free choose, no indepenent ideas and no change in routine, and so on). And by that talks about people who act like robots all the time will fade/change it that in all essence.

I think it questions humanity, if we lose our humanity, what are we? constant displays of humanity are the distinguishing factors that seperates humans from other animals, it's the foundation of techniques such as personification, if an object/animal is given human qualities we can relate to it, however, if a human loses their humanity they become cold and most of us, are unable to relate to them, sociopaths being a good example.

Take Shelly's Frankenstein, it is the "monster's" humanity, shown specifically through its' displays of emotion, that allow any form of linking with the character, the same can be said for any Disney movie in which animals/non-humans are the protagonist, humanity is what makes us human.

Human - Human = 0

Duh.... It's impossible for a human to act not as a human, as they define how a human acts, being a human. A human that fails to be a human could not exist, and something that does not exist is nothingness.