Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by The Last Magister at 8:55 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 We are reading Tuesdays with Morrie, and she loves the book, and today when we were talking about Morrie's view that love is great and we should all show emotion more often, then I stated that all violence has been caused by emotion in one form or another. She spent the WHOLE hour trying to beat that statement. Couldn't. Lol, she was so pissed at me, and the other kids were just like, "Wow, owned." Would someone like to take me up on it? If you can actually beat me with a valid point I might give you some points... Again, disprove that all violence is caused by emotion, directly or indirectly. -- Posted by XxRubberDuckiexX at 8:55 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Woo, mine does too. -- Posted by prettyinpurple at 8:57 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 yeah, teachers always seem to be stubborn...my are really pyscho! -- Posted by californication at 8:57 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Emotion is what causes every human action. Also, I fucking hate that book/movie. -- Posted by marine chic at 8:57 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Of course it is, because violence is an emotional reaction.   -- Posted by pumpkin475 at 8:58 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 he said people should show emotion more often. he didn't specify what kind of emotion. he was probably talking about positive emotion, considering the positive connotation (i've never read the book) i highly doubt he was saying "i mean every form of emotion. if you're angry at a guy just punch him in the face" i doubt he was saying that sooo......therefore it seems your argument was unnecessary. (stop me if i'm wrong because like i said, i've never read the book) it's a shame ur teacher didn't think of that. -- Posted by californication at 8:59 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Also: What was the point of the argument, other than pissing off the teacher? -- Posted by The Last Magister at 9:01 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from pumpkin475 at 10:58 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 he said people should show emotion more often. he didn't specify what kind of emotion. he was probably talking about positive emotion, considering the positive connotation (i've never read the book) i highly doubt he was saying "i mean every form of emotion. if you're angry at a guy just punch him in the face" i doubt he was saying that sooo......therefore it seems your argument was unnecessary. (stop me if i'm wrong because like i said, i've never read the book) it's a shame ur teacher didn't think of that. Except for the fact that positive connotation enables negative connotation such as insecurity and jealousy which can lead to violence. -- Posted by pumpkin475 at 9:05 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 9:01 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from pumpkin475 at 10:58 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 he said people should show emotion more often. he didn't specify what kind of emotion. he was probably talking about positive emotion, considering the positive connotation (i've never read the book) i highly doubt he was saying "i mean every form of emotion. if you're angry at a guy just punch him in the face" i doubt he was saying that sooo......therefore it seems your argument was unnecessary. (stop me if i'm wrong because like i said, i've never read the book) it's a shame ur teacher didn't think of that.   Except for the fact that positive connotation enables negative connotation such as insecurity and jealousy which can lead to violence. lol but i doubt that's the point, ya know? i see what you're saying completely. but if i'm not mistaken, he was only speaking of innocently expressing your happiness and stuff like that. it just seems unecessary to make an argument about it when it seems he was just saying "hey if you're happy, express you're happiness" ya know? would you rather people be emotionless, expressionless robots in order to avoid any form of confrontation. people who do that usually live very depressing lives. and that's probabaly the point he was trying to make -- Posted by The Last Magister at 9:08 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 But even love and happiness will cause protectiveness, which leads to hostilities and violence. I am fine with love and emotion, and I accept violence as a part of humanity. A lot of people can't seem to understand the connection. -- Posted by pumpkin475 at 9:11 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 9:08 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 But even love and happiness will cause protectiveness, which leads to hostilities and violence. I am fine with love and emotion, and I accept violence as a part of humanity. A lot of people can't seem to understand the connection. i dont understand why people wouldn't be aware of the connection. the connection between them is very significant. but like i said before: would you rather everyone just walk around like emotionless, expressionless robots just to avoid confrontation? people who do that live very depressing live and i think that's is the point the guy in the book was trying to make. show your emotion. dont hid it back. everything has a downside but if you show you're emotion, at least you get some form of an upside. instead of wallowing in dreeriness -- Posted by The Last Magister at 9:15 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Again, I don't view violence as a negative thing, it's a consequences, just like everything else, cause and effect. Just for some reason if you tell that to someone who is anti-war you will get a dirty look. -- Posted by pumpkin475 at 9:36 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 9:15 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Again, I don't view violence as a negative thing, it's a consequences, just like everything else, cause and effect. Just for some reason if you tell that to someone who is anti-war you will get a dirty look. if u dont think it's negative, why make an argument on it with you're teacher? if you simply think it's a consequence, why go through the trouble of trying to make your teacher agree with you on something that you both actually agree on after all? if you're not against the violence that emotion brings, why try to turn the statement at hand around? -- Posted by The Last Magister at 9:56 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from pumpkin475 at 11:36 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 9:15 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Again, I don't view violence as a negative thing, it's a consequences, just like everything else, cause and effect. Just for some reason if you tell that to someone who is anti-war you will get a dirty look. if u dont think it's negative, why make an argument on it with you're teacher? if you simply think it's a consequence, why go through the trouble of trying to make your teacher agree with you on something that you both actually agree on after all? if you're not against the violence that emotion brings, why try to turn the statement at hand around? Because she was using love in the context of it being a "solve-all solution" -- Posted by Doghouse at 10:00 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Robots may cause violence. Robots don't have emotions. The end. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 10:01 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from Doghouse at 12:00 am on Oct. 23, 2008 Robots may cause violence. Robots don't have emotions. The end. No they can't, unless programmed to do so, in which the intent lays with the programmer. -- Posted by pumpkin475 at 10:16 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 9:56 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from pumpkin475 at 11:36 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 9:15 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Again, I don't view violence as a negative thing, it's a consequences, just like everything else, cause and effect. Just for some reason if you tell that to someone who is anti-war you will get a dirty look. if u dont think it's negative, why make an argument on it with you're teacher? if you simply think it's a consequence, why go through the trouble of trying to make your teacher agree with you on something that you both actually agree on after all? if you're not against the violence that emotion brings, why try to turn the statement at hand around? Because she was using love in the context of it being a "solve-all solution" ok i see. u did not mention that in your original post. -- Posted by Doghouse at 10:34 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 10:01 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from Doghouse at 12:00 am on Oct. 23, 2008 Robots may cause violence. Robots don't have emotions.    The end. No they can't, unless programmed to do so, in which the intent lays with the programmer. Yes they can. Programs =/= emotions. I beat your argument. Not all violence is caused by emotion. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 10:37 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from Doghouse at 12:34 am on Oct. 23, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 10:01 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Quote: from Doghouse at 12:00 am on Oct. 23, 2008 Robots may cause violence. Robots don't have emotions.   The end.    No they can't, unless programmed to do so, in which the intent lays with the programmer. Yes they can. Programs =/= emotions. I beat your argument. Not all violence is caused by emotion. No, you didn't, because I said indirect, and that would be an example of indirect. Nice try though. -- Posted by medjai at 11:15 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 All human action can be said to be governed by emotion though, so I do not see the significance in that statement. -- Posted by medjai at 11:16 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Your presumption is essentially worthless, it's an air headed statement. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 5:49 am on Oct. 23, 2008 Wait, wait, wait, a statement that is completely accurate is worthless? Since when? -- Posted by Doghouse at 8:22 am on Oct. 23, 2008 Explain your reasoning by indirect? Indirect meaning "in all other cases where emotion isn't the direct cause, somehow somewhere emotion causes it." I can conceive a scientist bored one day, and wanted to see if he could create a program where the robot will smash anything with an expiration date like cartons of milk. However, this robot calculates that humans have an expiration date and start smashing them. I win. -- Posted by medjai at 10:35 am on Oct. 23, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 5:49 am on Oct. 23, 2008 Wait, wait, wait, a statement that is completely accurate is worthless? Since when? It's airheaded because it's meaningless -- Posted by Roger25 at 1:38 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 Quote: from californication at 8:57 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 Emotion is what causes every human action. Also, I fucking hate that book/movie. You are wrong that emotion causes every action. It is the driving force behind most actions. reflexes, the subconsious mind, disease, instinct, desire can all lead to action and this is not emotion. Well desire can be argued as an emotion. But I refuted your statement. :) -- Posted by obvious child at 1:52 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 7:01 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 No they can't, unless programmed to do so, in which the intent lays with the programmer. That would be true if programming was impossible to change either by accident or intention. Anyone who's own a piece for long enough knows that over time their system will start to behave strangely or that software conflicts between two independent packages causes really strange behavior. Your school sucks. You keep making posts about how you "own" your teachers but your argument are piss. Therefore your teachers are idiots if they can't destroy your asinine attempts. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 2:16 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 3:52 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 Quote: from TheLastMagister at 7:01 pm on Oct. 22, 2008  No they can't, unless programmed to do so, in which the intent lays with the programmer. That would be true if programming was impossible to change either by accident or intention. Anyone who's own a piece for long enough knows that over time their system will start to behave strangely or that software conflicts between two independent packages causes really strange behavior.   Your school sucks. You keep making posts about how you "own" your teachers but your argument are piss. Therefore your teachers are idiots if they can't destroy your asinine attempts. Again, INTENTION, you used it yourself...and I am assinine? Also, give me an example where two independent packages could cause violence by accident. -- Posted by obvious child at 8:05 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 Way to change your argument. The base criticism against your claim was that non-emotion feeling being, such as robots could cause violence. You claimed that only if they were programmed to do so. The problem is your argument relies on the notion that programming can only be modified by being with emotions. That is factually incorrect as proven by myriads of software conflicts on millions of computers across the planet on a daily basis. We know that software, when put together or left to its own devices for sufficent periods of time act in ways not programmed. Therefore your assumption requiring programming is bunk and you are wrong. -- Posted by The Last Magister at 8:27 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:05 pm on Oct. 24, 2008 Way to change your argument. The base criticism against your claim was that non-emotion feeling being, such as robots could cause violence. You claimed that only if they were programmed to do so. The problem is your argument relies on the notion that programming can only be modified by being with emotions. That is factually incorrect as proven by myriads of software conflicts on millions of computers across the planet on a daily basis. We know that software, when put together or left to its own devices for sufficent periods of time act in ways not programmed. Therefore your assumption requiring programming is bunk and you are wrong. I'm demanding specific examples and proof or calling BS, with violent applications. -- Posted by set free in Christ at 6:05 am on Oct. 25, 2008 how does stuff like this wind up in he religion section is what I want to know. Pages: 1 2  Next