istoba: Hello!

jASON: hello

I'm late.

i: No problem.

j: I was burning a cd

and it took longer than I thought to burn.

i: That's made me late on many an occasion. Especially when I needed to physically be somewhere. *(Postscript: WTF?)

I still don't trust the 52x burn speeds.

j: I wonder if it's possible for a computer to burn one in a few seconds

like with no mistakes.

i: I read a while ago that it isn't, and that they've reached the actual limit of burn speeds. Anything faster than 52x and it starts to insert errors, and the error checking algorithm can't keep up. I've experienced this at 52x. It seems to make music sound different.

j: Yeah

i don't ever go any faster than 16x.

i: Or maybe that was hard drive spin speeds. Probably both.

I have an email in my 'draft' box. I typed, deleted, typed, deleted, typed, deleted, for about 30 minutes before deciding to lay down for a bit and think of something worthwhile to say. And then I ended up falling asleep.

j: Who to?

i: You! As part of my promised pre-conversation conversation.

j: Ahhhh

Which, interestingly, brings me back to one of the original ideas I had for our discussions. Being, quality of information, vs. quantity of information.

but where from there, it's up in the air.

j: The buffet vs red lobster.

you know, the buffet wins every time.

i: But what about Red Lobster's biscuits!

j: mmmmmmmmmm

i: We need a mash up.

j: cheesy

actually, I was going to ask your opinion on something.

i: Shoot

j: And see if it developed into a discussion about anything important.

why do you think people get offended?

i: Sounds good. And if not, we can tackle importance again :

j: I mean, you can disagree with something someone says, or not like what someone says or does, without being offended.

i: That's interesting. I was thinking about something similar on the drive home. A question... What causes people to reconsider their beliefs, their opinions?

j: Well

experience would be the first thought.

i: Could a scientific method be arrived at that would ensure (not 100%, but with some impressive degree of capability) that given the right information, people's belief would change. Particularly about things that people seem to not change their beliefs about.

j: It seems like it's mainly first-person experience that changes people

say, for example, someone is all for the death penalty

then their teenage son gets the death penalty

suddenly they're experiencing it from another angle.

i: But it's the first hand experience that enables that. Before that, they hear the other side, but they don't understand it?

j: On a lot ov things, yes.

i: Do you think that's a requisite for most situations? That the person experience it first hand. Kind of like a naive form of pretension.

j: I think some people are more empathetic than others, and have a better understanding ov things, and can imagine situations or put themselves in situations and understand better.

but take your own experience with jail

you thought differently about it before you experienced it, right?

i: Yes

I imagined it a certain way. I imagined it absent the realities the actual experience of it contained.

j: Was it because you just couldn't imagine what it would be like?

i: Like, the choice part.

I at first imagined it in a way as if I had a choice. Like if I wanted to experience going to jail, I would throw a brick through a Macy's window and get myself arrested, of my own will. I never thought about it in an involuntary way.

Which surprises me, that I didn't.

j: When you can see another person in pain, you can understand better.

like, you might never have broken a bone

but when you see someone hobbling around on crutches you can understand it.

i: So there seem to be certain things, and these appear to be socially evident as well, that most people relate to, and that most people can understand and agree to. Like laws against murdering. And most aspects of inflicted pain. But then the easily identifiable sources (humans taking physical actions towards other humans) move into an emotional dimension, where there isn't a police force to enforce

or really any laws to enforce, regarding emotional pain, and how its inflicted.

I find that interesting.

j: Emotional pain?

you mean like rape?

or theft.

i: That's emotional and physical. So the physical act can be ascertained and prevented, or retributed (that should be a word.)

Theft is physically identifiable to. I'm thinking more of ways that people act, or even systems act, that cause emotional pain, that we haven't found a way to quantify yet.

I think it's difficult to understand, because its where each individuals personal choices can begin to clash with each other.

j: Like when a fast food restaurant gets my order wrong?

i: Haha! Sorry, stepped away to get a pot pie out of the oven.

j: Well, they are so many kinds ov emotional pain.

i: It's hard to define, but it's this sense that there's something seriously wrong with the world, and not knowing how it's being perpetuated.

j: I don't guess you're talking about when someone forgets your birthday.

so you mean on a societal level.

i: Or it's such a mixture of causes, that it creates confusion.

yes.. and societal arising from many individual levels.

j: A lot ov society’s pain is caused by people who experience suffering on a daily level

and people who have to watch those people suffer

like for example people who grow up in really bad areas

which are getting bigger and bigger.

i: In some ways, and this relates to part of the reason I couldn't finish the email, it's a personal sense of meaninglessness. And then many other perceived meanings that one feels one has a choice among. But wanting an inner meaning, a self meaning, but not being able to find or arrive at that.

yes

j: When I sign out ov hotmail, it goes to msn news

and pretty much every time there's a blurb about a large amount ov people being killed (usually in Iraq.)

it's all the time

"14 killed in suicide bombing"

it's lost its meaning.

i: Yes. And in addition, the news is presented in a way that means to be informative, but it actually (time and time again) creates a feeling or conclusion that there is nothing you can do about this travesty. So it begins to bring into question even the meaning of providing news.

What do you think the purpose of news is?

j: I think it's like so many things, in that at first it was a good idea and was important and had meaning, but has evolved into something else (for the most part)...

i: Would you agree that it provides a social snapshot, of the things happening across the world on a given day, at any given time.

"I don't agree to that"

j: Well it's all so biased

you only get a part ov the snapshot.

i: Do you think that news is subjective by nature because the choice of what will constitute the 'news' is decided subjectively by people, even though the content may match the general description of 'objective reporting' about that subjectively chosen topic.

j: hmmm

thinking

i think that some news sources are blatantly biased, and try to slant the news in a certain direction.

others I think don't mean to be biased, but are (tho less so) just because people are biased and don't even realize it.

i: And bias, as a definition, would be finding a center - common ground about an issue? Understand a balance of perspectives?

j: no

i: Sorry, opposite of bias.

j: Yet others slant things towards what they think people want to hear/read

to sell more papers and commercial time.

i: That's a good point. Because, the editors who are choosing the topics, may look to say, a Paris Hilton video. Whenever their network advertises and then plays Paris Hilton videos 10 times an hour, their viewership rises, so they assume that's what people want to see. Next when the network is approached by a band not matching that model, the editor is more inclined to accept another Hilton knock...

j: Exactly

i: ...off, because there's little risk in playing that and keeping ratings up. But people in reality may actually want to see something else, but they think what's on is their only option, so they choose among what's on.

j: Or maybe they think people would want to hear about celebrities rather than genocide

genocide might be the more important topic

but celebrities sell more.

i: So we have this social mirror (that is the news) that is painted by people just like us. i.e., humans with preferences (not necessarily just like us). So it's not really an accurate mirror/reflection. Even though we take it to be.

and since it's on the "news". It's gotta be important! Kinda like celebrities are important because everyone talks about them. I experienced this earlier this week, when at work everyone was going crazy talking about the revelation of Anna Nicole's baby's dad. I couldn't understand how these people could be so interested in something so removed from them, and seemingly lacking any value.

j: And yet, they probably don't even know their neighbor's name.

i: Precisely

that's part of this sense of something being "off"

the news creates a context for the celebrity adoration to be viable, for us to be used to. There doesn't seem to be a context for meeting your next door neighbor. At least not as comfortable of one. But I also see the internet changing that. Say if I met someone online, and it seems easier to spark up conversations there, and then say if that person happened to live down the street. That would...

... be an interesting event, allowed by the context of the internet. But I'm not sure why it's easier to meet people online than in person. Is it because we feel safer?

j: I think

yes

that makes sense

people are scared nowadays

scared ov each other

that's probably another reason we like celebrities.

i: But why does the internet make it safer. Do you think people are physically scared?

j: They're unapproachable

yes

i: And there's so much information about celebrities, it's like getting to know someone (and usually only hearing the good things) without really having to have the relationship. But people also go crazy around the celebrity in person. Is it because when the fantasy of their mind meets with the reality of the person, the fantasy overpowers them? How could someone be so excited to see, say, Michael Jackson, as some of his Japanese fans are?

they're going hysterical!

j: hahaha

but think about it- when you say you met someone cool online

there's ALWAYS someone there saying "s/he's probably an axe murderer!"

i: I love how it's always an "axe" murderer. Never just a normal murderer.

j: Would you rather be killed by an axe murderer or never met or talk to new people?

i: I'd rather be killed by the axe murderer. But sometimes meeting new people can feel like being murdered with an axe. Sometimes.

j: hahaha

there's nothing like finding someone when you're lonely who makes you want to be alone.

i: Having something in common is always the kick start. Or even things out of common. Then at least you can hate each other.

totally

j: That's a Rollins song.

but you notice, when you're meeting someone new (esp if you're lonely), you always build up the stuff you have in common, and ignore the stuff you don’t, or push it aside?

i: Yep. I remember those days. But it's easy to flip to the opposite of that too. And every new person you meet you look for all the things that are going to make the whole thing pointless, and ignore the good. Or you just stop caring (like me). Nowadays, if I meet someone I find really attractive, I try to pay more attention to their personality, and if that don't work, I imagine the skeleton that..

they are underneath

It works wonders.

j: Wonders, eh

i wonder if there's anyone who just accepts people they way they are, and doesn't care about anything.

i: That's my dream!

j: To be like that?

i: Have you met someone who just seems to be the same around everyone. Who treats everyone the same? It's quite awe inspiring

maybe it's just personality differences.

I tend to treat people a certain way based on how I perceive them.

j: I've met people that seemed to hate everyone

and treated everyone the same

bad

i: But I've done the opposite, and treated everyone good, at times when everyone wasn't.

I've learned a lot

but it always leaves me wondering how much more there is to learn. Is it never ending?

j: No

but that's good, isn't it?

i: It makes me question whether what I'm doing now, I'm going to look back on and say "wow, I know better now."

yes

Are you referring to the point where I'm an old man, set in my ways!

j: haha

hope not

i can just see you

hobbling around

croaking at people like a snapping turtle

"you're all stupid!"

"damn kids!"

i: I read in a scientific journal a while ago that the older people get, the fewer decisions they make. And that, simultaneously (that's not the right word), the old you get, the more important it is to make choices, to keep your mental acuity.

j: Yeah

you're supposed to keep the mind active

do crossword puzzles and stuff like that if nothing else.

i: Decide to punch a 7 year old brat in the face.

j: hahaha

i: "You don't understand officer! It's to keep me keen!!!"

j: Or a 37 year old brat

(by that age everyone looks like a young brat.)

i: About your question... Why are people offended

Would you say 'offense' invokes a mental 'thing' that has some rules that dictate what can and cannot be done, and then another mental 'thing' violates one of those rules? Who does the rule setting? Is it conscious, semi-conscious, sub-conscious?

j: Each ov us does our own rule setting, I think.

i: Are we aware we're doing it?

j: I don't know

but I do think I know one reason people get offended.

i: Share

j: For attention

it brings them attention

and it helps define their personality to everyone.

i: Can you provide an example?

j: Well, it seems when someone is offended by something, they have to proclaim it for all to hear.

basically, they’re saying "this part ov my personality is so important, that when something happens that brings attention to something that it's against, I kan't help but lose my emotions and freak out."

i: It's interesting to think that people assign levels of importance to certain aspects of their self or beliefs. Is the assignment arbitrary? Maybe a compensation or protective method.

j: Can you think ov anything that offends you?

i: I think I can...

... probably nothing I would freak out about. But when someone says that life has no meaning, I find that offensive. Although again, my personal experience of being offended is dissimilar to what you've described, and what I've experienced with some people. But for example, when something strange happens to you, or someone does something that blows your mind, and you repeat that as a story to a...

friend, it's usually told in a fashion that illustrates the 'audacity' of the other person.

j: It's hard to offend me

almost impossible.

i: I find that offensive!

ahahah

j: heh heh

i: I'm determined to offend you!

Upset and offended, are 2 different things?

j: Yes

even angry and offended.

i: How do you think one would go about expanding their perception? Does just trying new things equate with that, or could it be that many things that appear different as experience, all result in the same outcome. What are some things one could do to really shake themselves out of their way of seeing things.

j: My grandfather used to have a saying that I've found to be pretty true:

"life sucks"

just kidding

he used to say "nothing is as good or bad as it seems at the time."

i: So retrospect is almost, by design, equally as important as the moment of the event?

j: Not necessarily retrospect

but perspective

the bigger picture

things that seemed mind blowingly huge are no big deal now, so really, how big ov a deal could they have been then?

i: Is any of this set in stone?

I want some stuff set in stone!

10 Commandments damnit

j: Like the 15 commandments?

i: Oh no you didn't :'(

hahaa

blasphemy!

j: whaaat?

i: http://www.steorn.com

j: Everyone knows there were originally 15.

i: Alright, let's hear 'em Lord Jason

j: No one knows what they are

moses dropped and broke that one

that's what happens when you carve things in stone

what's this hippie crap?

steom?

i: hahaa

Free energy! Man

Tomorrow's D-day

Friday the 13th The Panel of 12 Scientists Validate or Deny

or they'll all die in an oil refinery explosion.

j: Friday the 13th!

hell yeah!!

i: Why is friday the 13th so cool?

j: Because you can have a marathon and watch all the movies.

i: I'll have to check wikipedia for the Friday the 13th history. I know nothing of it.

j: hahaha

then you'll have a 65% chance ov finding out the truth.

i: But it's on the internet!

the best tube system in the world!

j: tube?

i: Isn't the internet a lot of connected tubes?

haha

j: Guess what i just got?

i: A Culver's butterburger!

j: mmmmmno

…

^top