Imagine a person believes their privacy to be more important than another persons life. Further consider most people think their privacy to be more important than most peoples lives. I think this latter’s true. Probably necessary even.

Of course’t falls back on what privacy is, a definition of what’t is in practice (which by definition’s an individualized and personalized whatever).

My question – is’t antisocial?

And what of the converse. To value your privacy less than an/others’ life/ves.

It maybe that a peculiarly artful human pretension to some equality of ones own privacy and the value of other peoples lives is commonplace. I suppose if the pretension’s mutual and it works, why not.

Probably depends on the extent the I of self identity (ego) maybe attributed as residing in the private. There’d be feelings i’d guess about others regards the extent it _ought _ (reside in that private). And there’s abstaining from dubious, perhaps even grubby comparison.

Depends on the level of reasonable limits of privacy and the context of the persons, social connection and level of social standing or more to determine the requirements for privacy.

For example , an initiate relationship relies on the capacity of true disclosures to build and maintain trust a fundamental foundation of relationships.

However , having access to the basic privacy of a phone call with a loved one , medical records being safe guarded, disputes resolutions being a confidential proceeding until determined otherwise and the basic respect for another person’s right for privacy seems reasonable to most.

Intelligence gathering requires levels of privacy above family and social connections and conventions.

Censorship boundaries are controversial to most as censorship holds a power to deceive and alter the capacity to make informed decisions of individuals , groups , nations and more.

Initiate = intimate

Triage is based upon the cold determination of how to manage saving lives and I suppose a necessary thing in a serious crisis time.

There may be privacy matters that are maintained for those reasons as well (I imagine) .

transition said:

Imagine a person believes their privacy to be more important than another persons life. Further consider most people think their privacy to be more important than most peoples lives. I think this latter’s true. Probably necessary even.

Of course’t falls back on what privacy is, a definition of what’t is in practice (which by definition’s an individualized and personalized whatever).

My question – is’t antisocial?

I’ve had this problem with a particular person for the past two years.
“Right to privacy” is used as an excuse for complete cutting off from all forms of social interaction.
Yes. ‘tis antisocial. Even more, ‘tis insane.

is Larry signed up for that online psychology course again ?

wookiemeister said:

is Larry signed up for that online psychology course again ?

LOL

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

is Larry signed up for that online psychology course again ?

LOL

:)

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

Imagine a person believes their privacy to be more important than another persons life. Further consider most people think their privacy to be more important than most peoples lives. I think this latter’s true. Probably necessary even.

Of course’t falls back on what privacy is, a definition of what’t is in practice (which by definition’s an individualized and personalized whatever).

My question – is’t antisocial?

I’ve had this problem with a particular person for the past two years.
“Right to privacy” is used as an excuse for complete cutting off from all forms of social interaction.
Yes. ‘tis antisocial. Even more, ‘tis insane.

lol. No it isn’t. People are allowed to not talk to you if that’s what they choose

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

Imagine a person believes their privacy to be more important than another persons life. Further consider most people think their privacy to be more important than most peoples lives. I think this latter’s true. Probably necessary even.

Of course’t falls back on what privacy is, a definition of what’t is in practice (which by definition’s an individualized and personalized whatever).

My question – is’t antisocial?

I’ve had this problem with a particular person for the past two years.
“Right to privacy” is used as an excuse for complete cutting off from all forms of social interaction.
Yes. ‘tis antisocial. Even more, ‘tis insane.

lol. No it isn’t. People are allowed to not talk to you if that’s what they choose

Even if you will likely die if they don’t?

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve had this problem with a particular person for the past two years.
“Right to privacy” is used as an excuse for complete cutting off from all forms of social interaction.
Yes. ‘tis antisocial. Even more, ‘tis insane.

lol. No it isn’t. People are allowed to not talk to you if that’s what they choose

Even if you will likely die if they don’t?

Socially.

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

wookiemeister said:

is Larry signed up for that online psychology course again ?

LOL

:)

yeah, mate, he is :)

transition said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

LOL

:)

yeah, mate, he is :)

the thing is with psychology is that the theories started from top down, not down to top

all emotions have underlying chemical causes that are part of reactions to stimuli which could be internal (memories) or external, involving other people

when psychology and psychiatry accept this, then psychology and psychiatry theories will start to become more complete and accurate

most people feel their emotions which can start of very subtle and can become very intense and therefore noticeable to other people

If people don’t accept this then they are in denial or dont understand the chemical to emotions connection

CrazyNeutrino said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

:)

yeah, mate, he is :)

the thing is with psychology is that the theories started from top down, not down to top

all emotions have underlying chemical causes that are part of reactions to stimuli which could be internal (memories) or external, involving other people

when psychology and psychiatry accept this, then psychology and psychiatry theories will start to become more complete and accurate

most people feel their emotions which can start of very subtle and can become very intense and therefore noticeable to other people

If people don’t accept this then they are in denial or dont understand the chemical to emotions connection

It does not mean that current theories are wrong

for example, sex risk is well understood but could become more complete when all the chemicals are connected

>all emotions have underlying chemical causes that are part of reactions to stimuli which could be internal (memories) or external, involving other people

sounds like sorta nasty neuro-chemical reductionism to me, with an equal emphasis on external environment (re reactions to stimuli)

transition said:

>all emotions have underlying chemical causes that are part of reactions to stimuli which could be internal (memories) or external, involving other people

sounds like sorta nasty neuro-chemical reductionism to me, with an equal emphasis on external environment (re reactions to stimuli)

People can be base or they can be bass………

>People can be base or they can be bass………

sweet fuck all, mate, gets done without desires’n emotions
something’s got to motivate the show
shortly ol’ swingin’t axe’n ‘em’re hard motherfucker stumps
I nearly fifty not like bein’ cold ya know
‘ll summon’n reconfigure a few things in the mental toolbox