Posts by feralranger

Brian Gonzalez24 said:Which believers in the KC? Everyone who received the sacraments of initiation in the KC?

"A bit more active" believers? You mean those who grace us with their presence at Mass a few times a year?
.

I am referring to those who actually attend Mass, participate in prayer, and join church gatherings—the colleagues of the clergy, if you will—those who haven't succumbed to a willful blindness. I am certainly not talking about the "casual" believers who exist solely as entries on a census and act practically as outsiders to the community itself...

...however, never once did I use the word "all." What you are doing here is nothing more than a blatant straw man argument, much like the entirety of this provocative little topic of yours. If one examines that massive sample size of thousands of cases, it becomes quite evident that exceptions were exceedingly rare and that it took the secular media to finally bring any real shift to light.

Brian Gonzalez24 said:Sure thing, happy to help... as soon as I get there.

But please, let's refrain from pulling things out of context and manipulating the narrative again.

Brian Gonzalez24 said:Furthermore, let no one be deceived by his glowing praise for Pope Francis and certain "decent priests."
What possible value is there in such sentiment if the vast majority of the faithful—specifically Catholics—are viewed as moral voids?

I was merely stating the facts as I see them. The clergy within the Catholic Church has systematically covered up crimes; exceptions were exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, and a true turning point only occurred when the secular media finally stepped in.

I simply pointed out that "the emperor has no clothes" and that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

In short, this wasn't a matter of sporadic cover-ups; rather, the Catholic Church leadership has engaged in systematic concealment... had even a mere 1% of the faithful actually reacted, these crimes could never have reached such staggering proportions... it all stems from that specific religious mentality that boils down to "Let us just pray, forgive, and sing to Jesus" which effectively translates to doing absolutely nothing, and frankly, that is deeply wrong. The consequences are well-documented.

And the Pope, in those particular words, does not sound like your typical believer; he isn't relativizing the issue, nor is he attempting to advocate for the institution either directly or through subtle obfuscation:

“Some of the victims have been driven to suicide,” the pope acknowledges. “These deaths weigh on my heart, on my conscience and that of the whole Church. To their families, I offer my feelings of love and pain and humbly, I ask forgiveness.”

...which is precisely why I offered praise for the Pope's words (though whether he is truly sincere remains to be seen, a hope I can only hold onto). Nevertheless, these are words steeped in compassion and genuine remorse, rather than the usual relativism or wrapped-up legalistic defense one typically hears or reads from the bulk of the faithful.

mistybison said:The original poster admitted she knows her partner isn't interested in marriage or kids. It’s quite common for women to fall into the trap of self-delusion, hoping their partner will eventually change his mind. That is why I pointed out that we don't actually know the nuances of their relationship—we don't know what was explicitly said, how things were interpreted, or who is currently living in a fantasy. Even now, she is aware of the biological hurdles and the reality of being with someone who doesn't share her vision for the future, yet she still clings to hope. I am not convinced she will find much value in the blunt truths the OP might offer, just as no one wants to hear that their partner is speaking ill of them behind their back.

You might assume she’ll eventually realize she deserves better and walk away once she sees his true colors, but that isn't always how it works. People often remain in toxic relationships despite everything they endure. In fact, their biggest adversaries are frequently the very people trying to protect them with well-meaning advice.

She didn't just imply it; those were her exact words: "I know he isn't ready for marriage or kids, and I am willing to wait another two or three years."

It remains somewhat ambiguous what the actual situation entails—though, frankly, nothing being said here carries much weight, including your own commentary—but perhaps he is simply using her while she finishes her degree (or some other reason), feeding her the line that he's "just not ready yet" to keep her hooked, whereas he has absolutely no incentive to lie to a friend and reveal his true hand: that he views her as something merely temporary and disposable...

I fail to see any motive for him to deceive a friend, yet imagining a motive for lying to a girlfriend is quite effortless; for instance, one might seek the same results one would get from a high-end escort, just by utilizing charming, deceptive rhetoric and strategic silence. It’s a pattern we have seen played out countless times...

mistybison said:In three years, a woman can get to know her partner well enough to realize whether he wants children or not. These issues tend to be resolved quite quickly during one's thirties. We don't actually know what her true stance is regarding having kids given her illness. She might want them, but perhaps she has already come to terms with the fact that she won't have them; however, deciding on surgery and the finality it brings is difficult, so she shifts the responsibility for the delay onto her partner. It might simply be easier for her to face the situation by delaying things, despite the risks.

It is irresponsible to weigh in on all of this without sufficient insight into the most important person here—the sick woman who must reconcile herself to infertility—and how she truly feels. Despite good intentions, the original poster could end up making things worse.

I am uncertain, frankly, because the individual who initiated this discussion has provided insufficient data. Consider, for instance, if the man who claims he does not want children is actually just a college student using her for the same reasons some men pay for escorts; a complete coward who secures free companionship by spinning a fairy tale about marriage and future children once his current phase of life passes, all while telling his male friends that he has no intention of settling down and views her merely as "disposable."

Furthermore, I wonder: what if he had told the husband of the woman who started this thread that he knew the pipes in their apartment building were contaminated with toxins, yet chose to withhold that information from his girlfriend, allowing her to drink poisoned water? Where, exactly, does the boundary of "minding one's own business" lie?

From the perspective of mere self-preservation, it would indeed be easier to remain silent, as any intervention would likely result in nothing but resentment from the couple, and in certain convoluted circumstances, perhaps even from the woman herself. However, guarding one's own backside should not be the priority if we are truly attempting to engage in a serious discussion regarding the ethics of the situation...

This topic, in its essence, does not fall under the domain of psychology, but rather pertains to the morality and ethics of human conduct—which is, quite clearly, philosophy...

mistybison said:In three years, a woman can get to know her partner well enough to realize whether he wants children or not. These issues tend to be resolved quite quickly during one's thirties. We don't actually know what her true stance is regarding having kids given her illness. She might want them, but perhaps she has already come to terms with the fact that she won't have them; however, deciding on surgery and the finality it brings is difficult, so she shifts the responsibility for the delay onto her partner. It might simply be easier for her to face the situation by delaying things, despite the risks.

It is irresponsible to weigh in on all of this without sufficient insight into the most important person here—the sick woman who must reconcile herself to infertility—and how she truly feels. Despite good intentions, the original poster could end up making things worse.

I am at a loss, as the individual who initiated this discussion has failed to provide adequate context. For instance, if the man who claims he doesn't want children is actually just a college student using her for the same reasons some men pay for sex workers—acting as the ultimate bottom-feeder by spinning a tale of future marriage and fatherhood just to get what he wants, while privately telling his male friends that he has no intention of settling down and views her as mere "disposable goods"...

One must wonder, what if he had told the husband of the woman who started this thread that he knew the pipes in their apartment building were contaminated, yet chose to withhold that information from his girlfriend, allowing her to drink toxic water... where exactly does the boundary of "minding one's own business" lie?

From the perspective of merely looking out for one's own interests, perhaps it is best to remain uninvolved, as any intervention will certainly not be appreciated by the couple, and in a tangled web of circumstances, that poor woman might find herself even more vulnerable...

This topic, in my estimation, does not fall under the umbrella of psychology, but rather belongs to the realm of morality, ethics, and the philosophy of human conduct...

mistybison said:From what I can gather, your husband was simply sharing his perspective on what his friend wants—or doesn't want—within his own relationship. Since neither that friend nor his partner are close to you, and they haven't asked for your guidance, stepping in based solely on your husband's take would likely create an incredibly awkward situation for everyone involved. If that friend had confided in you personally, or if his partner had shared her anxieties about the relationship with you, you might have found a subtle way to encourage them both to reflect on their options.

We often fall into the trap of believing we see things more clearly than others, assuming we know exactly how people should navigate their lives. In reality, most people are quite aware of their circumstances; they simply aren't ready to face them or make difficult decisions just yet. Whether through conscious or unconscious self-deception, people follow their own paths. Unless they explicitly seek our counsel, we shouldn't force our way into their business, especially when our information is based on secondhand accounts rather than direct experience.

It isn't actually about her husband's personal opinion or mere impression; rather, it's based on specific information he passed along to her. If this other individual was the source of that information, then we aren't talking about his subjective opinion at all. While the wording isn't perfectly precise, that is certainly how I interpreted the context.

When faced with such a choice, shouldn't someone's actual health and survival take precedence over mere social comfort or avoiding a little bit of awkwardness?

hiddenpuma75 said:1) Regarding points c and e, I have to say I'm actually quite surprised you think there’s any distinction between being reasonable and being rational. To me, they're essentially synonyms, though I’d certainly welcome someone explaining the difference to me 🤔

2) As for point e, I want to state quite firmly that love isn't an emotion. An emotion is being infatuated, or feeling attraction, or feeling anger or fear.
I think I've finally grasped the true distinction between infatuation and love, which seems to be something many people struggle to understand..
Love is a state of being and an act of will; it is NOT an emotion OR a feeling.
The enlightened Bernadette Roberts explains this much better than I ever could—she's honestly the only female genius I've encountered in my search for the truths of the universe and the significance of the number 42

http://www.example.com/showpost.php?p=7...1&postcount=78

3)
A long time ago, back when I was young, handsome, and blissfully ignorant, I started a thread on an old message board titled

Why did Brad and Jennifer and Brad and Angelina break up, but your mom and dad didn't...
with the subtitle :

And why didn't your parents leave you, even though your girlfriends and boyfriends did? 😉

https://www.example.com/showthread.php?t=79232

Just consider these two sentences:

A serial killer rationally planned every single one of his attacks—how he would approach his victim undetected, how he would commit the crime, and how he would erase every trace of his presence...

A serial killer reasonably planned every single one of his attacks—how he would approach his victim undetected, how he would commit the crime, and how he would erase every trace of his presence...

The second version strikes a rather discordant note, whereas the first passes without much trouble, wouldn't you agree?

Ethan Gomez82 said:If you're printing counterfeit bills, "rationality" becomes a matter of luck—whether or not you get caught by the FBI. 😁

Following that particular line of reasoning (though I find myself questioning its validity), one might argue that if you're certain to evade detection, producing high-quality fakes would be the rational choice; however, true rationality would also have to account for the ultimate purpose of the endeavor—whether one intends to use them for some perceived good or just pure mischief...

Ethan Gomez82 said:Posting this kind of nonsense at 6:00 AM. 😛

Do you truly believe there is any logic to this?

It is, quite frankly, entirely irrational and utterly nonsensical. 😬

Or perhaps I am being too hasty... considering how little time actually elapses during the printing process... hmm...

Consider these two ways of putting it:

Being a good person is rational.
Being a good person is reasonable.

Setting aside the inherent ambiguity of the word 'good' for a moment...

The first phrasing implies a certain level of calculation—the idea that if you treat others well, they will reciprocate, which feels almost like a mathematical equation or a simple cost-benefit analysis.

The second formulation might actually border on tautology, assuming that the concept of being 'reasonable' already inherently encompasses what is 'good.'

If I were to venture an opinion, I would say that 'rationality' is something cold, purely anchored in logic. Within that specific framework, one could argue that the calculated actions of a high-functioning sociopath are perfectly rational, even if they are anything but reasonable.

We typically associate acts of love with being reasonable, while acts of hatred are viewed as unreasonable (though, one wonders, is it truly 'unreasonable' to despise a criminal?)... yet emotions like fear or disgust seem to exist in some sort of limbo; they don't neatly fit into either category, instead drifting in a gray area that depends entirely on context, or perhaps existing entirely outside the scope of those definitions. Can we even apply the labels of 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable' to a feeling of disgust? If so, does that imply that the realm of the reasonable is limited to only a select few emotions?

Furthermore, is it even possible to love someone rationally or reasonably? Are the two terms even interchangeable in this context?

Or is such a thing considered undesirable? Saying "she loves him rationally" sounds somewhat calculating, which is why people avoid it. Then again, saying "she loves him reasonably" doesn't sound much more natural either; instead, when describing a profound passion, we say she loves him 'madly.' It is as if, for love (perhaps only for Eros?), it becomes desirable to abandon both the rational and the reasonable. Does the concept of what is reasonable actually have room for love at all?

Come now, let us dispense with those little emojis you use to signal that you aren't quite... well, what I suspect you aren't. Let's be clear, shall we? Because unfortunately, basic clarity does not seem to be included in the package alongside your perceived erudition...

Pray, articulate your thoughts using specific instances regarding choices or decisions:

a) what is, for instance, rational, yet falls short of being logical?
b) what is, for example, reasonable, yet fails the test of logic?
c) what is, say, reasonable, but lacks rationality?
d) what is, perhaps, rational, but entirely unreasonable?

e) the interplay between what is reasonable, what is rational, and raw emotion (such as love, hatred, or fear), illustrated through tangible examples.

In short, I am requesting substantive answers via very specific scenarios; otherwise, I shall be forced to conclude that you are simply being obtuse, given those emojis you employ to imply this is all trivial and that you have mastered these nuances effortlessly...

(Of course, it is quite simple enough to isolate logic as a universal constant devoid of affective components... but navigating the remaining boundaries, overlaps, and subsets of these definitions is hardly such a straightforward endeavor.)

Steven Brown5 said:"Is it actually possible for something to be totally illogical yet still make sense, or maybe perfectly logical but completely nonsensical? I mean, if you couldn't have one without the other, we’d just be talking about the exact same thing. But since they clearly aren't identical, there’s gotta be a middle ground where things are irrational but feel right, or strictly logical but just plain stupid. What kind of stuff are we even talking about here?"

Love, for starters! ☺

But what exactly is love in this context? Is it "reasonable" even if it lacks logic? Or is it something entirely beyond our grasp, making it neither logical nor reasonable?

The title of the novel Reason and Emotion seems to imply that feelings sit outside the realm of intellect. (As Billy Joel might put it regarding a Woody Guthrie song, "It’s not about brains, it’s about the heart.")

Yet, if we assume emotions don't belong to reason at all, one has to wonder: where exactly does the distinction between being "reasonable" and being "logical" actually lie?

Steven Brown5 said:To idea of "reason" is basically this massive umbrella term that tries to pull everything—logic, our humanity, all those messy layers of being human like cognitive, emotional, and even sociological stuff—under one single label.
It’s not some rigid thing you’d find in a textbook for hard sciences; instead, it’s deeply tied to the actual human psyche, which means you have to account for every single facet of how we function if you want to actually define what reason is.
At the end of the day, logic and reason aren't even remotely the same thing.

I would argue that there is an entire minefield of potential communicative breakdowns stemming from these very terms...

Where exactly does the overlap lie between being intelligent, reasonable, rational, and logical? What is the actual distinction between them?

Is it possible for something to be illogical yet reasonable, or irrational yet logical? If neither scenario were possible, we would have to concede they are identical concepts. But since they clearly aren't, there must exist instances of things that are reasonable despite being illogical, or perhaps illogical yet somehow reasonable. What on earth could that look like?

And once you throw the word "rational" into the mix, the confusion reaches truly dizzying proportions.

If anyone genuinely believes they can impose "order" upon these definitions, mapping out their overlaps and distinctions through concrete examples, I would find myself quite fascinated to see it.

Sam Martinez9 said:I enjoy writing—that much should be fairly obvious by now—so I have a vested interest in seeing more active threads and a larger crowd of people participating here. You could say my motivations are somewhat selfish rather than purely altruistic.

Honestly, I couldn't care less. I’m not about to waste my precious time trying to prove a point or getting sucked into some endless back-and-forth argument. It's just not worth the energy.

Since you specifically asked me to stay away from this topic, I think it’s only fair that I ask the same of you: let’s not even attempt to start a dialogue here.

I didn't actually "start" anything; rather, I simply provided a response to your own inaccurate assertion because... well, I never once labeled you a "psychopath," it was you who chose to link your own decision to psychopathology right here in the text. As the old saying goes, "She fell, and she fell on her own." Honestly, why you insist on behaving this way is a mystery known only to you...

Sam Martinez9 said:No problem at all. Since you labeled me a psychopath the last time we touched on something similar, believe me when I say I have zero desire to keep this debate going. It isn't that your opinion bothers me; it’s just that arguing it feels entirely futile. I only put these few posts together for one simple reason—to make sure this thread doesn't get locked.

I didn't exactly "declare" you a psychopath; I merely noted that in an either-or scenario involving an animal versus a human, you admitted you would choose to save the animal—provided, of course, that the human wasn't your own son.

Sam Martinez9, I would kindly ask you to refrain from cluttering this thread with your nonsense...

Sam Martinez9 said:If that's the case, why even bother asking the question on a forum?

Go find five people, throw them into the Atlantic, and watch what happens. Once you're done, you can come back to the forum and report your findings.

That is the only way to get a valid result—by running an actual experiment. Not by hosting a poll.

Because I am genuinely preoccupied with the ethical implications and the rather messy intersection of professional morality and pure rationality.

It seems to me that everyone else participating in this thread has grasped the core of what we are questioning, with the sole exception of yourself.

Sam Martinez9 said:If that's the case, why even bother asking the question on a forum?

Go find five people, throw them into the Atlantic, and watch what happens. Once you're done, you can come back to the forum and report your findings.

That is the only way to get a valid result—by running an actual experiment. Not by hosting a poll.

Why, oh why, do you insist on spouting such utter nonsense, and what could possibly drive you to do so?

Sam Martinez9 said:

feralranger As requested:
In that scenario we discussed earlier—where you have two boats and only one can be saved—the vast majority of people would choose their own child over five Chinese individuals. It’s what most of us would do. We’d follow our hearts, even if we tried to rationalize it by claiming we have a fundamental responsibility to protect our own kin. In the end, it's just raw emotion winning out over logic.

If you were stepping into the shoes of a professional rescuer and faced a choice between saving five Chinese nationals or your own child—even if that child was eighteen and technically an adult—professional ethics would dictate that you save the five strangers and let your kid perish. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I could live by those rules. I’d act purely on instinct, and I'd choose my own blood every single time.It’s just plain irrational.'.

J

An example alone can't really capture how people act under pressure. When things get truly stressful, you're dealing with unpredictable territory; nobody can say for certain how they'll react when the heat is actually on.

When things go sideways and the pressure starts mounting—which usually demands an immediate response—human instinct tends to take over in a pretty predictable way. Most of our reactions become reactionary and purely emotional. The logical, reasoned part of the brain? It barely even shows up for work.

To suggest that a professional rescuer can be entirely devoid of emotion is simply unrealistic. If we are talking about a human being, it’s an impossibility. That kind of detachment is something you’d only expect to see in a robot.

When it comes to the actual application of reason, I often wonder if we even possess it—or if we simply fail to employ it. It isn't just during high-stakes crises where split-second decisions are required; even in the most mundane, low-pressure moments, we seem to bypass logic entirely. Instead, we default to a messy cocktail of raw emotion, primal impulses, gut feelings, and deep-seated prejudices. It is essentially that chaotic whirlwind of instinct that defines our humanity, for better or worse.

Ultimately, that specific context is irrelevant to my point because the way one views that choice can be analyzed from an a posteriori perspective. (I suppose I could fabricate a scenario where a rapid decision isn't required, but that would be completely tangential to the core of what I am actually questioning.)

Gerald Jackson48 said:He made a good point.

You really need to take a step back here. You have to look at how you're defining what counts as "reasonable" versus "unreasonable" in this scenario before you can confidently claim one is definitely unreasonable and the other is reasonable.

Without some kind of devil in the details, we aren't even talking about true ethical dilemmas.

Fine, I am merely suggesting that if that particular choice is considered rational, then logic and professional ethics are effectively at war with one another.

I myself have cast a shadow of doubt over the entire premise.

Because, if it is deemed perfectly rational to prioritize saving one's own son over five complete strangers, then we have essentially provided a functional justification for nepotism. Professional ethics demand that we save the greatest number of people, not our immediate kin. If you label that impulse as "rational," you are opening a massive Pandora's box, as you will inevitably face similar dilemmas involving strangers versus family members or distant relatives in other contexts.

I admitted that I would save my son, but I would characterize that decision as being driven by raw human emotion rather than anything resembling "reason."

feralranger:

Druid As feralranger points out: I find myself inclined to disagree. Understood. While professional ethics are certainly a noble pursuit, they ultimately represent nothing more than an expensive collection of evolving practices that are perpetually subject to refinement and overhaul.

Does that imply that professional ethics is either a subset of general ethics, or perhaps entirely separate from it altogether?

Semantically speaking, one would naturally assume that such an expectation exists. If it didn't, we would be left with the rather absurd notion that "professional ethics" could somehow exist in direct opposition to actual ethics, which—if I'm being perfectly honest—strikes me as a logical impossibility.

If we accept the premise that "professional ethics" is merely a subset of broader ethics—and since you previously conceded that such a classification isn't inherently absurd—then we are forced to confront a rather uncomfortable logical impasse: that reason and morality are, in fact, at loggerheads.