I approach everything as an intellectual or strictly logical perspective. Everything. It's always been just a rule with me. I am of the firm belief that any 'good' belief can be reached through logic of some sort.

Don't take this the wrong way as I know you're a great guy based on what I've seen of you, but I was pretty much like you in my yesteryear. Paolo is pretty much the way you describe at the moment, and always has been. However, he has Borderline Personality Disorder, which leaves him considerably distanced from understanding appropriateness a lot of the time, as well as being severely emotionally underdeveloped. I'm not accusing you of this at all, understand - I'm not saying "MATURE UP" or "GROW UP" or any of that bullshit. I'm just mentioning this to help you clarify my opinion on why I feel it inappropriate to approach this from a solely intellectual standpoint.

I'm not saying my thoughts here are definitely 100% correct, but my view of what you're saying largely comes down to maturity. Not intellectual maturity, but emotional maturity - there comes a point where you realise that many topics (while totally acceptable for academic study and debate) transcend that when they approach the realm of reality and people's actual lives.

Eugenics is something that can be intellectualised - in fact, good ol' Belross made a name for himself back in the day with his controversial intellectual postings on the topic. The stuff he came up with was incredibly well thought out and interesting, as was his theories on trans people. However, the one thing they didn't actively consider was the practical reality of application - things he was saying were actually hurting people who were around at the time. To him it was abject theory, an interesting side jaunt into fascinating topics. But to others they related to the stark realities of their own lives. The debates took place in the old TOPIC OF THE WEEK forums however, wherein debates like that were actively encouraged - nothing was off the table.

I hope I don't seem arrogant here, I totally can understand how I'd be perceived as this, and considering the amount of time I spend arguing AGAINST anti-intellectualism I probably seem like a hypocrite. I don't believe that any topic is OFF the table when it comes to debate if you're in an academic environment or debate focused grouping. But in the social sphere concerning interactions between people on a more casual level it comes across as cold and distant to approach this as if it is a topic that even merits debate.

This debate wasn't about the abstract concept of word meanings or the philosophy of vocabulary itself. It's about actively causing harm to others around you who you're choosing to socialise with. It isn't theoretical or academic - it's reality itself.

Warped: again, I'm not trying to claim superiority or anything in this, in fact I'm one of the last people who should get to do that given the way in which I've carried myself when it comes to this shit during my life. I'm just explaining my thoughts on this topic.


PS: I don't disagree that good beliefs can be reached through logic. I just feel that some truths are self evident and effectively shouldn't need to be justified. One of these in my opinion is the idea of not harming others without valid reason.

IT IS IN TEH BIBAL!!!!