Technology and the Levelling of Man

i'm going to throw this in case there is some further misunderstanding. i am not saying that honesty is all that's required as of course compatibility is really the basis of mutual relationship of any kind but honesty is essential to find that out. people are complex and what one needs, desires and likes/dislikes ranges from the blatant to the subtle and differs between individuals even with some similarity just as each relationship will be unique.

cranapple wrote:

no response?

Why?
don't you already know everything i can possibly respond with?
Why are you here, anyways, given that you know all of it?
Shouldn't you be off somewhere discussing shit with people who tell you things you do not know?
Like on Mount Olympus?

cranapple wrote:

intent is critical to deceit. deceit denotes an aggressive act. from all your responses, you regard any omission as an act of deceit, in all cases. this has been the basis of your argument. it is unrealistic because motive is not considered.

Boy, does a snake deceiving any potential predator that it is poisonous have to have a conscious intent or a personal motive?
The snake is oblivious to its own deception.

But omission is an act of deceit boy. Grifters use it regularly. They allow the other deceive themselves and they simply play along, adding to what the other already wants to believe.
Boy, if you had a friend with a hot girlfriend you wanted to bang...and he was convinced that she was cheating on him, when you knew she was not, would you by allowing him to think that she was cheating on him not be deceiving him because you wanted him to break up with her?

cranapple wrote:

there is omission to misrepresent and bad faith and there is omission for self-preservation. the latter is not really deceit. it is a word we use because there is none other to differentiate except to call it self-defense. it is not trying to pull one over on the other to take advantage, which is deceit and a totally different motive.

Man-child deceit is always bout self....everything is about self.
Like I said, when a bug looks like poisonous one, is it not deceiving for self-def fence? When a cat raises the hairs on its back to appear larger than it really is, what is it doing?
Does it have to be consciously aware of it, or does it only perform an act, which turns out to be deceptive, because it works?

Deception is part of nature, boy.
Trivers....read you silly child.
Deception works and this is why it evolves...and because it evolves the capacity to perceive deception evolves with it...making self-deception a one-up-manship.

cranapple wrote:

for instance, if in a relationship and one learns that the other dislikes a certain subject or opinion, it is not deceit to keep it to oneself if that is what the other expects. these are trivial areas which have no motive of deceit behind it if they don't betray the agreed upon basis of a relationship.

It is boy, if you wish to discuss the topic or if the topic interests you or if your opinions on the subject would not be taken well by the other.

cranapple wrote:

not revealing everything to everyone is not deceit either. unless there is a motive to take advantage, it is not deceit and neither is an honest mistake. as one shares in increments to an other, how they respond will dictate whether they can further continue and if they can have mutual understanding and agreement. to be leery of opening up or further without positive feedback or the other reciprocating is not deception.

Boy you've latched to the word "deceit" like a baby on a blanky.
You originally said, man-child, that honesty is the best policy when ti comes to relationships, and I pointed out that relationships are built and based on huge amounts of bullshit, on omissions and never on total intimacy or honesty.
You don't have to try to hurt the other, man-child, to be willing to hide your true opinions. Your intent is to maintain the other's good will, because you want them in your life....and so you make every effort not to ruin this.


Boy, did you indulge me in my challenge?
A mental test.

Imagine a world where all thoughts were public...not one thought that passed through your mind was hidden. All heard what you thought at all times.
How long, to you suspect, relationships, and most of all the relationship called society, would last?

deceit?

you mean how failed to notice we are on different wavelengths? that you took my response to vanitas' post regarding relationships (when all common sense clearly implied it's mutual even extenuating from prior posts) out of context or was it deliberate?

how you argued omission without considering motive and context is deceit. how you waxed on redundantly about "literal" deceit (lie, omission, hidden agenda) as if that wasn't already understood and you are schooling me? how you equate a person lying to their spouse about their infidelity as self-preservation to one being forced to lie under threat of harm as deceit when the former is a motive to perpetuate the betrayal/deceit and the latter is not. you know? how your understanding of deceit is like how a computer knows math but you fail to apply motive and context to understand deceit. it's just all the same to you.

how your argument was what is and my argument was what is best? this is not even the same discussion and you used what occurs as an argument against what is best?

how you used triver's quote to imply that due to even unconscious self-deception motivated by self-preservation, one can never correct deception when the opportunity presents itself or one is never motivated to do so because it's all about 'one-upmanship' at all times and in all contexts? you know? like how when you kill pathogens by washing your hands, you are one-upping them but to you but you regard the desire for a mutual relationship 'bullshit' because it may involve actually fixing/correcting self-deception and even unconscious deception? to you, it's all about the self and one can't genuinely care for another or be honest with them because it still is motivated by the self and what it wants. now that is bullshit.

how you think all literal thoughts being public betrays your shallow and simple understanding? it's not thought but the motive behind it. one may observe another is fat without any malicious motive to hurt, one may observe another is fat with a motive to insult, one may observe another is fat and their motive is concern for their health.

mutual relationships involve both parties knowing they have eachother's best interests at heart, faults and all.

as for being honest, this is irrevelant but let's. how constant accusations of naivetey and simplicity of others betrays one's own fears of being deceived, let alone the fact everyone is relatively naive and simplicity is not necessarily wrong or even negative.

now accuse me again of being simple and your pov isn't, asshole, while you delude yourself that anything you've responded with is not something i or most already know.

Quote :

Like on Mount Olympus?

ok, now this was funny. i'm just sparring. jeezus