Thread: Which is more dangerous?

Well, logically, heh, the so-called "Stand Stone" people are more dangerous.

Well basically that's conservative vs. liberal, or right-wing vs. left (although not quite I guess in the latter case).

Both extremes can be dangerous, but I'd say that the standstone can be much more dangerous in the world. People that stick to their beleifs end up blinded to a lot of other things. If you stand by your beleifs no matter whan then you are a closed mind, and people with closed minds are often people who believe that everyone else should beleive the same as them etc etc. I really despise people wit closed minds.

I'd like to introduce another option - what I call 'the multiplex mind' (I read the name somewhere)
If you feel it fits into the above, or doesn't apply, say so

Explanation: They learn to understand others' point of view, regardless of their personal standing with it. They learn to separate the good and the bad, and not just chuck everything in the bin if the box looks crap.
Their own point of view is usually quite involved, and incorporates ideas from all sides. Taking the bits of truth wherever it can be found. Their point of view is also constantly open to change and further thought. Difficult topics result in an opinion that is in constant flux.

Advantage: They are open minded, compassionate to others' opinions, logical and generally very diplomatic. They are good to speak to as an 'eye opener' on topics that are well known to them.

Disadvantage: They end up without a fixed opinion in the more tricky topics, which can annoy those who want to be handed one on a platter.
It also does tend to mean that they won't join a mob protest on a complicated topic, as there is no black/white to it, and their opinion is constantly in flux.

Originally posted by Placebo
I'd like to introduce another option *- what I call 'the multiplex mind' (I read the name somewhere)
If you feel it fits into the above, or doesn't apply, say so

Explanation: They learn to understand others' point of view, regardless of their personal standing with it. They learn to separate the good and the bad, and not just chuck everything in the bin if the box looks crap.
Their own point of view is usually quite involved, and incorporates ideas from all sides. Taking the bits of truth wherever it can be found. Their point of view is also constantly open to change and further thought. Difficult topics result in an opinion that is in constant flux.

Advantage: They are open minded, compassionate to others' opinions, logical and generally very diplomatic. They are good to speak to as an 'eye opener' on topics that are well known to them.

Disadvantage: They end up without a fixed opinion in the more tricky topics, which can annoy those who want to be handed one on a platter.
It also does tend to mean that they won't join a mob protest on a complicated topic, as there is no black/white to it, and their opinion is constantly in flux.

Yep, this is me...people ask me 'serious' questions, i answer, and they say 'why do you never give us a straight answer!'
and regarding those that want answers on a plate, i've no sympathy for people like that...you have to make your own choices about what you believe in at the end of the day...

I dislike it also when I'm asked for a straight answer sometimes, and I rarely give straight answers. If anything, they only get what they want to hear, and never really learn anything. That's the stand stone type.

When there's only 2 possible polar potentials to a questions, it's just not always applicable. Some things were not meant to be that way. Reasoning is required to test any belief imaginable, although I do not rely upon reason alone.

Of course, if you have a stand stone orthodox Buddhist, I don't really see a harm in that...

Originally posted by AirRick101
I dislike it also when I'm asked for a straight answer sometimes, and I rarely give straight answers. *If anything, they only get what they want to hear, and never really learn anything. *That's the stand stone type.

When there's only 2 possible polar potentials to a questions, it's just not always applicable. *Some things were not meant to be that way. *Reasoning is required to test any belief imaginable, although I do not rely upon reason alone. *

Of course, if you have a stand stone orthodox Buddhist, I don't really see a harm in that...

lol i never ask straight questions but i really should have put in poll stand stone and which way the wind blows type lol

oh ya.... stupid me lol i think each type of person is good if ur doing certain things like if ur a precher you might want to have faith in beliefs and be the stand stone type but if your like on a jury you might want to be the logic type

shoot, I picked logic and reason by mistake!

Jesus = Stand-a-lone
Scribes Pharisees = Reason and Logic

Who was right?

Why, the Pharisees, of course.

So what are their names, and what where they right about?

O' so you wont have a (cow) I'll continue within this page...

Can you tell me what the date is? And how it came to be?

First of all:

Secondly: what Placebo said.

There couldn't possibly be anyone more dangerous than someone that writes the way you do, Justme.

So I'd like to vote for you!

Originally posted by Awaken4e1
Jesus = Stand-a-lone
Scribes Pharisees = Reason and Logic

Who was right?

The Pharisees weren't using reason and logic at all, they had made up laws and doctrines that had little basis on the bible at all. They were plain angry and frightened. I doubt logic came into it much.