Hey Tiger88

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Tiger88.....you noted somewhere on another post, that I had quoted you twice in regards to calling someone stupid and asked if I were being sarcastic. I quoted you because I think you are right. No sarcasm intended. I was serious in agreeing with you. Geez, take it as a compliment. I'm not the enemy.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Tiger88.....you noted somewhere on another post, that I had quoted you twice in regards to calling someone stupid and asked if I were being sarcastic. I quoted you because I think you are right. No sarcasm intended. I was serious in agreeing with you. Geez, take it as a compliment. I'm not the enemy.

Yeah I AM!...remember who the bammers are...haha j/k. Actually ive managed to get along with both 88 AND PT this last year pretty well.

[StatTiger 3,188]

Yeah I AM!...remember who the bammers are...haha j/k. Actually ive managed to get along with both 88 AND PT this last year pretty well.

YGM

[BamaGrad03 0]

Thanks stat, that was really cool!

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

BG....disagreeing on some things doesn't mean we "don't get along." I can't help it that you are a bammer. Wish as I might, I can't change that

Actually I get along with almost everyone. The ones I don't are those who are continuously negative, spew venom with every breath and just like to sit behind their little computer and anonymously criticize people they don't even know.

[BamaGrad03 0]

okay then hows this...ive managed to AGREE for the most part with PT and 88...over the last year...

[tiger88 934]

It's kinda hard to tell who's fooling who sometimes on the web. I'll take your word for it here, I just didn't understand why you were quoting me instead of just saying it yourself. It really doesn't do me any good either when you are using my quotes to get under other peoples skins, but hey.

To me it is a very simple fact that when you put someone down you are doing it to feel better about yourself. Some people just get defensive when you say they have an ego. They visualize deion sanders or terrell owens in their heads and think "I don't have an ego like those guys". The truth is that nearly every person on this planet has an ego, some are just more positive or negative than others.

Every poster on this board has an ego or they wouldn't be here posting and wanting THEIR opinion to be heard and appreciated so badly.

If you call yourself an idiot sometimes that is still acknowledgement of your ego, your mental picture of who you are. Something tells me most of us on this board end up with a positive tilt on the ego when all the +'s an -'s are added up.

If you ever rid yourself of your ego and recognize that your true identity is your connection with God and not your mind identified self image of who you are then you have accomplished something that very few have. According to my handy dandy book on spirituality you would have attained Enlightenment/Salvation. You would no longer feel the need to defend the ego through insults, judgment of others, etc. You would be fully at peace with yourself and your place in this world. All negativity and defensiveness within you would dissolve.

Anyways, I'll take you at your word here pt. Sorry if my question seemed a little accusatory.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Tiger88......you write a post like that and wonder why I quote you?

[tiger88 934]

Tiger88......you write a post like that and wonder why I quote you?

Well, I still wonder if you're being sarcastic, but I suppose it really doesn't matter.

The knowledge that I am quoting has been around for 1000's of years, it's not like I'm making it up. I've just come across some of it recently and it is very interesting.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

What's funny is 90% of the posts I have made where I mention Bobby Lowder have been sarcastic. Yet you, autigger, et.al., categorixed me as a huge Lowder supporter. Then I try to be serious and you have trouble believing. :huh:

It's kind of interesting to note that the last post quoting you has been deleted.

[autigger 0]

What's funny is 90% of the posts I have made where I mention Bobby Lowder have been sarcastic. Yet you, autigger, et.al., categorixed me as a huge Lowder supporter. Then I try to be serious and you have trouble believing. :huh:

maybe you should get the hint then. if you are constantly"sarcastic" why would anyone believe any different on any other thread???

[LegalEagle 22]

PT, would you answer this question honestly?

"Do you have a picture of Bobby Lowder on display at your home or place of business?"

[tiger88 934]

What's funny is 90% of the posts I have made where I mention Bobby Lowder have been sarcastic. Yet you, autigger, et.al., categorixed me as a huge Lowder supporter. Then I try to be serious and you have trouble believing. :huh:

It's kind of interesting to note that the last post quoting you has been deleted.

If we were meeting eye to eye it would be different. It's just a little hard to interpret things that are said on the internet sometimes.

If I may quote penguinaub:

"It's kinda hard to hear sarcasm on the internet".

WDE!

[tiger88 934]

PT, would you answer this question honestly?

"Do you have a picture of Bobby Lowder on display at your home or place of business?"

[TitanTiger 20,483]

To me it is a very simple fact that when you put someone down you are doing it to feel better about yourself.

Well, I'd say this is a very simple opinion rather than a fact. Sometime you call an action "stupid" because it simply is. Feeling better about yourself (or not) is a side effect, not the motive. Sometimes I feel better when I think about it because I don't do the stupid thing I'm mentioning. Other times I don't feel so good about myself because I know I'm guilty of doing the very thing I'm calling stupid.

Some people just get defensive when you say they have an ego. They visualize deion sanders or terrell owens in their heads and think "I don't have an ego like those guys". The truth is that nearly every person on this planet has an ego, some are just more positive or negative than others.

I took umbrage to your describing the inflating of one's ego as a "motive" for labeling something as stupid. I don't agree. I don't disagree with the idea that everyone has an ego.

Every poster on this board has an ego or they wouldn't be here posting and wanting THEIR opinion to be heard and appreciated so badly.

I also think this is a bit simplistic. Not wrong, just too narrow. Some people post their opinions on matters because they hope to influence opinion toward an end they see as desireable. Others post because for the very reason you mention. Others just enjoy hashing out subjects with people they find some common ground with.

If you ever rid yourself of your ego and recognize that your true identity is your connection with God and not your mind identified self image of who you are then you have accomplished something that very few have. According to my handy dandy book on spirituality you would have attained Enlightenment/Salvation. You would no longer feel the need to defend the ego through insults, judgment of others, etc. You would be fully at peace with yourself and your place in this world. All negativity and defensiveness within you would dissolve.

While I agree with the goal of seeing oneself as God sees you, not as others or even you see yourself, I wouldn't go along with the idea that therein lies "salvation". But then again, I'm a tad more orthodox Christian in my beliefs and what you're saying has a rather Buddhist quality to it. I believe that salvation comes entirely from God, not through any ability to recognize one's true identity or any other human effort or striving.

And on that note, I think it's time to move this subject ot Random Ramblings.

[tiger88 934]

To me it is a very simple fact that when you put someone down you are doing it to feel better about yourself.

Well, I'd say this is a very simple opinion rather than a fact. Sometime you call an action "stupid" because it simply is. Feeling better about yourself (or not) is a side effect, not the motive. Sometimes I feel better when I think about it because I don't do the stupid thing I'm mentioning. Other times I don't feel so good about myself because I know I'm guilty of doing the very thing I'm calling stupid.

Starting this statement "To me it is a very simple fact..." is an acknowledgement that it is just my opinion. To me it is a fact, to others it may not be.

Whether something is stupid or not is ALWAYS open to interpretation. There may be an overwhelming majority opinion on some things but it is still just each persons opinion until God fills us in on what is smart and dumb. Is there a verse in the bible that labels cigarette smokers as stupid idiots for starting to smoke? Of course not, that is just your opinion, regardless of you having stated repeatedly that it is a fact. There are many people out there who do not label all ciggy smokers as idiots. They recognize that smoking cigarettes will very likely have negative consequences on that persons health, and they may wish that that person would quit, they just don't feel the need to label them in a negative way. They don't need that ego boost for whatever reason.

Whether you label yourself or someone else as an idiot you are feeding the ego in either a + or - way. I think that most times it is a subconscious thing. I don't think many, if any, people are going around thinking " I'm gonna label this guy an idiot so that I get a + ego boost".

Some people just get defensive when you say they have an ego. They visualize deion sanders or terrell owens in their heads and think "I don't have an ego like those guys". The truth is that nearly every person on this planet has an ego, some are just more positive or negative than others.

I took umbrage to your describing the inflating of one's ego as a "motive" for labeling something as stupid. I don't agree. I don't disagree with the idea that everyone has an ego.

Seeing cigarette smoking as a probable self destructing habit that you wish someone would not participate in is one thing. Labeling all smokers as idiots for starting smoking is directly passing judgement on those people and is done to make you feel better about yourself for not doing the same thing. They are dumb/ you are smarter. Your feelings on the matter could be adequately described without labeling these people in a negative way so why do it? The answer is all too obvious. If they are not labeled as dumber then you can not be seen as smarter. the subconscious mind is hard at work.

Every poster on this board has an ego or they wouldn't be here posting and wanting THEIR opinion to be heard and appreciated so badly.

I also think this is a bit simplistic. Not wrong, just too narrow. Some people post their opinions on matters because they hope to influence opinion toward an end they see as desireable. Others post because for the very reason you mention. Others just enjoy hashing out subjects with people they find some common ground with.

All three instances you mention fortify the ego in one way or another. There is a need for the ego to be stroked in all three.

If you ever rid yourself of your ego and recognize that your true identity is your connection with God and not your mind identified self image of who you are then you have accomplished something that very few have. According to my handy dandy book on spirituality you would have attained Enlightenment/Salvation. You would no longer feel the need to defend the ego through insults, judgment of others, etc. You would be fully at peace with yourself and your place in this world. All negativity and defensiveness within you would dissolve.

While I agree with the goal of seeing oneself as God sees you, not as others or even you see yourself, I wouldn't go along with the idea that therein lies "salvation". But then again, I'm a tad more orthodox Christian in my beliefs and what you're saying has a rather Buddhist quality to it. I believe that salvation comes entirely from God, not through any ability to recognize one's true identity or any other human effort or striving.

I believe that salvation comes from God, but will never come until you recognize your true identity. I nutshelled a little too much there.

I would classify my religious beliefs at the moment as slowly changing. The current books on spirituality I am studying pull very heavily from Christianity and Buddhism as well as lightly from a few others. I consider myself somewhat non denominational at the moment. I don't think there is one religion that has all the answers.

Obviously this is all jmo. Sorry for using the smoking reference again and again, it was much easier than wording it generically and it really is where the root of this discussion lies although the implications spread further.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

To keep from being redundant, I'm not going to answer every point. But...

Seeing cigarette smoking as a probable self destructing habit that you wish someone would not participate in is one thing. Labeling all smokers as idiots for starting smoking is directly passing judgement on those people and is done to make you feel better about yourself for not doing the same thing. They are dumb/ you are smarter. Your feelings on the matter could be adequately described without labeling these people in a negative way so why do it? The answer is all too obvious. If they are not labeled as dumber then you can not be seen as smarter. the subconscious mind is hard at work.

Says you and your books. I think it's a bunch of hooey. JMO.

If I was smoking right now I'd tell you it was the dumbest thing I ever did because now it's so hard to quit, it's destroying my health, driving wedges between me and my friends (them not wanting to be around me when I smoke, etc.). I just find it hard to believe that you can't just label something as smart or dumb on its face in some cases. I'm not saying everything in life is as easy to see as this issue. But just as some things are smart things to do, other things are dumb. The only obvious answer here is that you bought into some quasi-New Age mumbo jumbo that is crippling your ability to make a rather simple judgment.

All three instances you mention fortify the ego in one way or another. There is a need for the ego to be stroked in all three.

And I think you're working a tad to hard to make every objection fit into your paradigm. For instance, if I value human life and either (1) argue against abortion on demand, or (2) argue for a moratorium on the death penalty, you could argue with me the pros/cons of my espoused view. But it is not a need to stroke the ego that makes one want to influence opinion in such a manner that it makes perhaps a small, increment change in the way society views human life.

In fact, the only example I cited that fits your paradigm is the one that merely repeats your original premise. Having a good time hashing out subjects, thereby learning the pros and cons of various points of view is not "ego-stroking". It's learning and to some extent, building relationships...such as they are over the internet.

I believe that salvation comes from God, but will never come until you recognize your true identity. I nutshelled a little too much there.

Well, I still disagree. God did it all because we are incapable of attaining it on our own...even if "our own" only constitutes some epiphany of self-realization.

I would classify my religious beliefs at the moment as slowly changing. The current books on spirituality I am studying pull very heavily from Christianity and Buddhism as well as lightly from a few others. I consider myself somewhat non denominational at the moment. I don't think there is one religion that has all the answers.

Well, as the answers so far would tell you, I respectfully disagree.

Obviously this is all jmo. Sorry for using the smoking reference again and again, it was much easier than wording it generically and it really is where the root of this discussion lies although the implications spread further.

I understand. Just try not to be offended when I keep counterpointing you on this some. I think it's an important point of discussion.

[tiger88 934]

I am not offended and am enjoying this discussion, I promise. I appreciate the respect you give in presenting your argument even though you strongly disagree with me on many points. I'm not sure why you thought I was offended.

I don't have alot of time at work today. I'll continue this evening.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

It's kind of funny. Ole Legal Eagle asked me above about pics of BL. He has never responded but is now asking on the football forum how may pics I have of bear bryant. Guess I will have to count them when I get home tonight.

[tiger88 934]

Says you and your books. I think it's a bunch of hooey. JMO.

If I was smoking right now I'd tell you it was the dumbest thing I ever did because now it's so hard to quit, it's destroying my health, driving wedges between me and my friends (them not wanting to be around me when I smoke, etc.). I just find it hard to believe that you can't just label something as smart or dumb on its face in some cases. I'm not saying everything in life is as easy to see as this issue. But just as some things are smart things to do, other things are dumb. The only obvious answer here is that you bought into some quasi-New Age mumbo jumbo that is crippling your ability to make a rather simple judgment.

I don't doubt for a second that you might feel that way. For you to automatically assume that you feel that way therefor it is a fact/ universal truth is pretty interesting really. I am not sure of many things, but I am sure that there are many smokers and some non smokers who would whole heartedly disagree with you. I guess they would be double idiots for smoking and then disagreeing with your "fact". I could easily rewrite your last line to read, "The only obvious answer.......... that is crippling your ability to agree with me." ,and the meaning of the sentence would not change. No ego problems there . Is it so hard for you to see that there may be plenty of people out there who see smoking as a bad thing for peoples health yet do not label all smokers as idiots? I guess so because you have stated repeatedly that it is a fact/universally true judgement that all smokers are idiots. The only thing that is a fact is that long term smoking will very likely cause you some health problems and they could be very serious.

I have long believed that anytime you call someone stupid or an idiot you are doing it to feel better about yourself. My quasi-New Age mumbo jumbo just reinforced what I already believed in this particular case.

I hope you are seeing this more clearly now . Gee whiz, next thing you know you'll be telling me that your attacks (hooey, quasi-New Age mumbo jumbo) on my spiritual philosophy are not a result of some insecurities you have about your own religious/spiritual beliefs. ( Why do I get the feeling that I'm about to be told that your words were not attacks, they were just the "way it is"?)

And I think you're working a tad to hard to make every objection fit into your paradigm. For instance, if I value human life and either (1) argue against abortion on demand, or (2) argue for a moratorium on the death penalty, you could argue with me the pros/cons of my espoused view. But it is not a need to stroke the ego that makes one want to influence opinion in such a manner that it makes perhaps a small, increment change in the way society views human life.

In fact, the only example I cited that fits your paradigm is the one that merely repeats your original premise. Having a good time hashing out subjects, thereby learning the pros and cons of various points of view is not "ego-stroking". It's learning and to some extent, building relationships...such as they are over the internet.

In the two examples you provided the ego would be asserting a need to be agreed with, a need to feel that your opinion was the right one. You could state your opinion on the subject and there you go, everyone would know how you feel. The argument that resulted from your need to be agreed with would be a reflection of the ego. If you are discussing these subjects with someone who disagrees with your viewpoint, yet you do not look down at them for their opinion, and get no feeling of justification/vindication or whatever if they come to agree with you then the ego is probably not involved. Both of our ego's are hard at work on this thread.

If you are just hashing out common ground and get no feeling of justification for your beliefs and don't feel better about yourself just because you are being agreed with then perhaps the ego is not involved. If you feel better about yourself in any way, shape, form, or fashion simply because someone is reinforcing your opinion then the ego is involved.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

I'm getting off the smoking argument because it is obvious that no matter what is said, you will do somersaults to make it about the ego and we're basically at an impasse. But moreover, your response to the abortion/death penalty proposition cuts more to the point of why I'm finding this line of belief of yours lacking...and possibly morally bankrupt depending on how this discussion progresses. Oh, and don't play that tired, lame tactic of insinuating that someone argues a point or makes a smartass remark out of either underlying insecurity or hypocrisy. I've encountered that red herring enough to almost identify it on smell before it actually appears, alright?

Now, let me rephrase the abortion argument to something a little more stark in hopes that you will see the semantic gymnastics you're performing here.

If I argue to someone that murdering an innocent person for no reason is evil and wrong and should not be done (and don't say this is universally believed because otherwise, we wouldn't have serial killers or Al Qaida), is that coming from "a need to be agreed with" and "a reflection of the ego" because "I believe [my] opinion was the right one?" Or could it be coming from a motive that human life is valuable and should be protected...especially innocent life?

[tiger88 934]

I'm getting off the smoking argument because it is obvious that no matter what is said, you will do somersaults to make it about the ego and we're basically at an impasse.

You might as well drop it. You didn't even answer most of the questions I asked you. I wonder why .

But moreover, your response to the abortion/death penalty proposition cuts more to the point of why I'm finding this line of belief of yours lacking...and possibly morally bankrupt depending on how this discussion progresses.

It would make my day if you labeled anything about me, including me, morally bankrupt.

Oh, and don't play that tired, lame tactic of insinuating that someone argues a point or makes a smartass remark out of either underlying insecurity or hypocrisy. I've encountered that red herring enough to almost identify it on smell before it actually appears, alright?

I would say that I directly implied it rather than insinuated it. I'm not surprised in the least that you are in denial about this as well. Psychology doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I guess your main strong point is "telling it like it is". Anyways, we can discuss this later if you're up to it.

Now, let me rephrase the abortion argument to something a little more stark in hopes that you will see the semantic gymnastics you're performing here.

I think the semantic gymnastics you are referring to are actually just different interpretations that we have of a very relative truth. I get the feeling that anyone who doesn't come around to agree with you is performing semantic gymnastics. Do you believe that there is such a thing as a relative truth?

If I argue to someone that murdering an innocent person for no reason is evil and wrong and should not be done (and don't say this is universally believed because otherwise, we wouldn't have serial killers or Al Qaida), is that coming from "a need to be agreed with" and "a reflection of the ego" because "I believe [my] opinion was the right one?" Or could it be coming from a motive that human life is valuable and should be protected...especially innocent life?

Why do I get the feeling you would try to argue with a serial killer? Good luck if you ever do (don't turn your back on him!)

The answer is yes to all three.

1. If you can't see that anytime you argue with someone there is a need to be agreed with, especially in this case, then I might just end up speechless on that one (you wish, huh? ).

2. Anytime you argue the ego is at work fighting for its need to be agreed with and the pat on the back that comes along with winning an argument.

3. Of course it is also coming from a belief that human life is valuable and should be protected. I would guess that with the humungous majority of people this would be the #1 reason that they would be arguing hands down.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

You might as well drop it. You didn't even answer most of the questions I asked you. I wonder why .

Look, I dropped it because I felt like we just kept rehashing the same old stuff, getting us nowhere, plus your response to the abortion question was hitting the subject on a more substantive level. But I'll indulge you if you insist:

Is it so hard for you to see that there may be plenty of people out there who see smoking as a bad thing for peoples health yet do not label all smokers as idiots? I guess so because you have stated repeatedly that it is a fact/universally true judgement that all smokers are idiots. The only thing that is a fact is that long term smoking will very likely cause you some health problems and they could be very serious.

Actually, I do believe I softened my stance on this to say that anyone who starts smoking now, knowing all that we do about the health, financial and social consequences of it has made a stupid decision. I even said that there are otherwise smart people that have, in this instance, done something stupid by starting to smoke.

I also gave a rather detailed list of pros and cons on smoking. Now, I will concede that for someone who lives in a reality where lung cancer, emphysema, increased risk of heart attack, physical and psychological addiction to the very thing that's inflicting these diseases upon you, paying out the nose for the privilege of doing this to yourself (in the cost of cigarettes plus increased health problems and insurance), having smelly breath, clothes, hair, and possibly home and car (thus reducing the latter two's resale value), and having friends not want to be around you when you smoke are all good and desirable things...maybe that person hasn't made a stupid decision. Maybe it's a very smart decision. Now, when you find a place where that is the reality, let me know. Psych wards and the like don't count.

I think that's the only question you asked me, but please direct me to any I missed that you'd like me to address.

It would make my day if you labeled anything about me, including me, morally bankrupt.

I'll hold off on that proclamation until we've fleshed out this worldview of yours a little more.

I would say that I directly implied it rather than insinuated it. I'm not surprised in the least that you are in denial about this as well. Psychology doesn't seem to be your strong suit. I guess your main strong point is "telling it like it is". Anyways, we can discuss this later if you're up to it.

Implied, insinuated...whatever. I don't really care what you think I'm in denial about. I reject the tired debating tactic of taking a strongly argued objection to something and twisting it into some kind of insecurity or underlying hypocrisy on the issue. Forgive me if I just don't feel the need to "stay on the couch" and indulge your inner pop psychologist on this.

I think the semantic gymnastics you are referring to are actually just different interpretations that we have of a very relative truth. I get the feeling that anyone who doesn't come around to agree with you is performing semantic gymnastics. Do you believe that there is such a thing as a relative truth?

Yes, on some things. On matters of taste for instance. Some like Picasso, others don't. Some like the taste of broccoli, others don't. If someone doesn't agree with me on matters of personal taste, I don't care. However, there are some things that should be apparent on their face, and the relative "smartness" or stupidity of the decision to begin smoking is one of them. I say relative because there are dumber decisions: deciding to shoot up heroin, smoke crack, snort coke, etc. Those things are even more dangerous and can have even more immediate harsh consequences. But all of the above reside in the realm of dumb decisions...unless of course you are a person living in the aforementioned reality where all the adverse consequences are deemed desirable. Is this not just common, everyday, run-of-the-mill, horse sense?

Why do I get the feeling you would try to argue with a serial killer? Good luck if you ever do (don't turn your back on him!)

That isn't the point. In effect, by having the laws we have, SOCIETY (and in a greater sense, God) is arguing with the serial killer. Society has made a value judgment that I believe has nothing to do with a collective "ego" or desire to be agreed with, but rather a collective understanding of absolute truth. Do you believe in absolute truth?

The answer is yes to all three.

1. If you can't see that anytime you argue with someone there is a need to be agreed with, especially in this case, then I might just end up speechless on that one (you wish, huh? ).

I don't see that at all. I see that in some instances. That desire or need certainly exists for some or in some situations for virtually everyone. I don't see how that belief is valid when applied to the murder issue especially.

2. Anytime you argue the ego is at work fighting for its need to be agreed with and the pat on the back that comes along with winning an argument.

You know, simply repeating this over and over doesn't make it any more true than the first time you said it. I fail to see where you've made your case for this.

3. Of course it is also coming from a belief that human life is valuable and should be protected. I would guess that with the humungous majority of people this would be the #1 reason that they would be arguing hands down.

And I would say that very few, if any, would truly argue for this belief for the reason you previously stated. I would say that it comes from the ingrained, eternal standard that all of us recognize on some level that human life IS valuable and the realization of how dangerous the spread of a belief that human life is of little to no value really is. That's not ego in my book.

UNLESS...there is also a reality out there where otherwise reasonable people with full control of all their faculties believe that killing innocent people for no reason is a good and desirable thing. Is there such a place, aside from the convoluted logic of the mind of a madman?

[tiger88 934]

All I'm going to say for now is that you are so far off on the relative truth thing it is ridiculous. Whether or not you want to admit it whether or not someone is an idiot is 100% relative to each person who observes the situation. If you look up idiot in the dictionary none of the definitions say "those who smoke".

Anyways, I'm in my brothers wedding on saturday and the grind is on because I'm helping alot with preparations so I don't have the time to give this topic the thought it deserves. C'ya soon when I do.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

All I'm going to say for now is that you are so far off on the relative truth thing it is ridiculous. Whether or not you want to admit it whether or not someone is an idiot is 100% relative to each person who observes the situation. If you look up idiot in the dictionary none of the definitions say "those who smoke".

Anyways, I'm in my brothers wedding on saturday and the grind is on because I'm helping alot with preparations so I don't have the time to give this topic the thought it deserves. C'ya soon when I do.

Well, rather than counterpoint you on this installment, I'll wait for the more detailed treatment. I look forward to your more considered response.