scourge99

Charles Manson perceived his murders as good... does that make them good? I think not.

You need to explain what you mean in a bit more detail. Because everyone's perception is different there needs to be some basis for what is considered good or bad otherwise this argument is pointless.

Because I have explained what is rational. By processes of elimination, if I have detailed everything that is rational then everything else is logically irrational.

I'm leaving the door wide open for you to contradict my argument. All you have to do is show logically or rationally why people should not use certain words. However, all you've mentioned is vague references to possibilities but have yet to expand your reasoning on anything you've mentioned.



People can have word associations with anything. For example, something as innocent as a flower can remind someone of a traumatizing event. We can't not use words because it MAY offend someone somewhere due to association. Furthermore, association is a fallacy in such circumstances; guilt by association fallacy. Just because I call my black friend a ******, doesn't make me a racist. It is irrational to assume that I'm a racist just because I use that word... especially so if I use it in a context that is NOT racist and in a non-negative context. EG, if you see a white guy call a black guy a ****** and the black guy laughs and obviously takes no offense, is the word still "bad"??? NO, it is not. It can only be bad if it used in a negative context.

Taking offense to a word used in a non-negative context is irrational. This doesn't mean it won't offend people but that is because the people who are offended are being irrationally sensitive to a word.

I just don't see how anyone can be rationally and/or logically sensitive to a word without context. It makes no sense.

Now you are just wasting time. If you got an argument then explain it yourself. Don't play these dodge ball games where you put a link up, claim you know something in the link is important because "you're not so well versed in psychology as I am", and then end your rambling without anything of substance. That is truly lazy my friend.

PS - the "halo/horns effect" that people experience is a "cognitive bias whereby the perception of a particular trait is influenced by the perception of the former traits in a sequence of interpretations". Such a bias, is IRRATIONAL, it is ILLOGICAL. Can you not understand that?

Edit: in the wikipedia link the "halo effect" even has a link to "Guilt by association"

Halo effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lightdemon

I've already explained it. You called bull****. So I pointed you in the direction of sources that says it's not. If you want to argue the sources, that's up to you.

The concept of word associations isn't even confusing. It's very basic. All you need to know are the theories that I've outlined for you already. If you are willing, we can discuss those theories and then extrapolate to word association phenomena. The theories that I've mentioned to you can all be found in intro courses for psychology. Do you wish to discuss that?

And despite that, people still have these tendencies, dont' they?

So what is it? Do you think that certain words can be associative to negative events? Do you now believe in word associations? OOOoooOOoOO MInd ControOOOooOll.

Logical or illogical, that doesn't mean people do not have word associations. Shall we go back to my original statement? Word associations can be used as rationale for people who advocate that certain words shouldn't be used because it enforces a certain attitude towards that word.

If they have a rationale, how can they be irrational?

__________________

alphieb

I wondered that myself when Bush W. got elected. It takes one to know one.

__________________
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"--FDR

"Be the Dream"--alphieb

"Failure is the condiment that gives success its flavor". --Truman Capote

scourge99

What more is there to discuss with word associations? I've shown that word associations are irrational. Yes, this phenomenon occurs but because it is irrationally justified it is NOT a valid excuse to take offense to words.

Yes, and when some people get angry they kill people. Likewise, having other irrational motivations is NOT AN EXCUSE and WE DO NOT CONDONE SUCH ACTIONS. Such is true with the condemnation of particular words.

Of course I believe in the phenomenon known as word associations. However, they cannot be used to JUSTIFY irrational conclusions because it is a fallacious conclusion.

Yes, and anger is a REASON for murder. It doesn't make it ACCEPTABLE because such an action is irrationally justified even though it is a REASON, nonetheless. Is this making sense yet?

Just because someone has a reason for an action does NOT mean their action is rational. If their reason is ILLOGICAL and thus IRRATIONAL then the action is NOT justified. Emotions, for example, are almost always inadequate justification for negative actions (I'll explain more on this if needed; its quite a lengthy topic).

Perhaps we are using the word "irrational" too loosely. I use irrational in the sense that it denotes an action without sound reasoning; not in the sense that their is a reason, sound or unsound, behind the action.

Because their rationale is irrational. Now you're stooping to semantic games in a feeble attempt to prove your point???

Caine

On a lighter note.....

I had to go to the hospital the other night as soon as I got to work because of an assault report.

I was told that a nurse was in the emergency room with a man from a residential care facility who had been stabbed.

I thought, "Oh no! An old person got stabbed in an old folks home!"

I got to the hospital and after finding where my victim was, I found out my victim wasn't old....

He was mentally handicapped, and lived in a home (which I didn't know existed as it was like a regular house) for mentally handicapped adults.
I was unable to get much information out of him other than he was stabbed in the back of the head with a pen by another resident at the home named "Bob".

His injuries weren't that serious, just a lump, but photos were taken, blah blah blah.

I then went and spoke with "Bob". I asked Bob what happened. Now mind you, "BOB" is a rather large 40 year old white guy that reminds me of my own dad in his outward appearance. However, talking to "Bob" was like talking to a 12 year old. He had that "........yes......." sort of "shameful" act going on, like kids have when they get in trouble and are being scolded by their parents. "Bob" told me that "Mike" kept bothering him. I had to ask him 4 times (just like a kid) what else happened. He continued to act scared. So I had to outright ask him, "Did you stab "Mike" with a pen?" He pulls a pen out of his jacket pocket and says, "......." but then he nods. I asked him, "Do you think that was the right thing to do?" He replies, "No."
I then told him to apologize to Mike later.

I left the hospital and called my supervisor up and DARED her to write me up for not arresting the guy for assault. No friggin' way I was going to arrest a mentally handicapped dude for this reason, it just wouldn't seem right.



So, to answer the question....

Yes, "retards" should be allowed to speak because they need to communicate their needs/desires/ and other information to people. To include communicating with their doctors, or in the rare case where they are stabbed in the head with a pen, to the police.

__________________
This same attitude is going to be the excuse used when Obama loses. Mark my words.

Lightdemon

You need to differentiate "irrational." The way we use "irrational" in a logical argument construct is different when discussing it in psychology. There are many things that are "irrational" in psychology. One only needs to mention psychological disorders. These disorders make people think "irrationally." You mentioned "cognitive biases" in an earlier post. These tendancies come naturally, and yes, they are irrational behaviors. You cannot "justify" a cognitive bias. In psychology, that wouldn't make any sense.

Like I suggested, you should do some reading on the topic.

Cognitive biases are cognitive processes. Your brain is basically conditioned to act a certain way based on the way you live. That is a gross generalization, but it will do for our discussion.

How do you rid yourself of these cognitive biases? The same way you got them. You can't just say, "oh I have a bias, now I will no better!" No, it's not that simple.

Furthermore, no one is excusing or condoning "cognitive biases." Again, in psychology, that wouldn't make any sense. "Cognitive biases" are the result of sustained and maintained activity of the brain and/or behavior. You are confusing this with "irrationality." The first is the result behavior of familiarized events/stimuli. The second is a behavioral anomaly.

To change a social behavior, this is a possible choice. One could have the goal of changing the word "gay" into a positive word. Much like the word "bad." There is nothing irrational about this.

Again, you have mistaken "cognitive bias" for "irrationality."

Again, there is no justification for "cognitive biases." You can change the cognitive biases. By reinforcing a different attitudes via word associations.

Once more, irrational is illogical when you make a logical argument. It is not same when you use it in psychology. If you have a psychology text book handy, I suggest you look in the glossary for "irrational."

Right, the way you use it does not fit in the psychological context. Sound or unsound have nothing to do with it.

Behavior can be separated into 2 types. Conscious and unconscious. A cognitive bias is obviously an unconscious behavior, not an "irrational" behavior.

I hope I have been clear in making the distinctions of the two terms.