Consensus Gentium Debate: Is it good or bad to be open to influence?

[Joy]

‘Consensus Gentium’ is to decide on what is true or right based on a general agreement among the masses.

To take a group of people’s opinions as axiom is ill-advised by most standards. Not many would argue in favor of this practice. What our theory presupposes is: what if it’s not?* It can’t be wrong to ask what's what for the sake of talking about things, at the very least. That will be the goal of this section: weighing over and wrestling with various topics until a general conclusion can be reasonably drawn by a majority.

When a question/topic is put forth to discuss** it will be open for ten days of debate before closing. Once closed there will be a three day voting period to determine the consensus gentium.

While readers are encouraged to participate in the comments section below, we will also be allowing for anonymous discussion***. Opinions submitted anonymously will be posted by staff as such in order to add them to the conversation. Voting will be submitted privately, with results posted publicly. Any topic/question put forth will be shelved for 6 months once it is decided on after which it can be resubmitted for debate again.

If you're wondering how you can determine a black and white outcome to topics that aren't black and white, allow us to offer clearly defined grey areas. For example if the topic is ‘Torpor - Yay or Nay?’ you might break voting down with The Alignment System:

Lawful Good - Always torpor for 2 weeks after being zeroed, True Neutral - It is important that torpor is honored while not obligatory, Chaotic Evil - Never torpor, never stop, never surrender, ETC.

If the topic was to be ‘Is the color purple actually the worst (and should we pretend it doesn't exist)’ the answer might be broken into a Flow Chart:

Are you colour blind? ---> Yes ----> You probably already don’t believe it exists.
Are you Prince? ---> Yes ---> Purple reigns, purple reigns.
Are you the 1985 Academy Awards? ---> Yes ---> 11 times no.
Are you the 1985 Golden Globes? ---> Yes ---> Whoopie for The Color Purple!

We can get creative, people. Let’s not be scared to speculate outside of the box. The idea is to be fun and/or expository. You are also encouraged to use a lot of big words to sound smart, if you haven’t already vaticinated.

So let’s just get right into it and chew on the first topic, of which the irony is not lost on us: Is it good or bad to be open to influence? Does learning from our peers make us wiser or does indifference make us free thinkers? Some parts of our community believe in goodness and do-goodery and some parts believe we should be upholding our sinister and monstrous side. Where does right and wrong influence measure up in cases where the community ethics are torn? This rabbit hole will require a full search party to reach a consensus gentium. Every opinion counts here.


*Shout out to The Royal Tennenbaum’s if you get that reference.
**If you would like to suggest a topic/question for discussion you can do so here: THE PLACE
***If you would like to submit an opinion for discussion you can do so here: THE OTHER PLACE

[xxsacrificexx]

There's so much involved here. I'm not going to take the time to put everything together yet but I want to introduce a few of the things I think are important to addressing your current topic.

The first one is the concept of 'good' and 'bad' to begin with. To begin thinking about these ideas objectively, I suggest making yourself familiar with Kohlberg's levels of morality which you can do here: https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/m ... evelopment

Using the concepts outlined there, I think have to ask if it's even possible for a consensus to be made considering everyone has their own idea of what good and bad means and how it should manifest in their reality.

I just got distracted by some shit I shouldn't talk about on here.

I'll come back and argue my points later, maybe, ish.

[Yawa]

You know, you can argue ethics for millennia (and people have. See: Plato, Buddha, Ibn Rushd), but I don't think that's what the point of this question really is. I think if you peel back the layers to this question a little, it's asking, "Is it all right to change your mind? Is it all right to vacillate between 'moral' and 'immoral' (whatever your definition of either word happens to be)?"

And to that question, I ask: Someone tells you that the sky is blue, and you, having only seen it at night believe it to be black. If you were to stay awake until daytime to confirm this, and in the morning you see it is, indeed, blue, what colour would you decide to believe the sky to be?

[smitsmit]

Hmm. Well, this makes me think of the phrase "No man is an island" . I would say it's near impossible to be completely closed off to influence. If you -are- somehow are closed off to it, it's likely not healthy.

In a city such as this, we have all sorts of folks, some good, some neutral, some bad. Most likely enjoy staying where they are along these lines. However even if you thought you were closed off to outside influence, I still believe it happens to all of us subconsciously, regardless of our desires.

Influence is a healthy thing, it helps us to better our judgement, our communication, and who we are and what we wish to contribute to this community. Even a bad influence can still be helpful, if the knowledge gained is applied in a positive manner. It applies the same way for a villain as well. They would accept influence that helps them further themselves.

I'm going to lean towards it being good to be open to influence. Unless you wish to live in a box, it will help you become yourself, and help you develop your identity in this city.

[Vex]

Being open to influence is good, but being completely believing of everything you hear is not. Weighing information, validating it, using it to formulate opinions, but also allowing yourself the breadth and space to formulate your own ideas about people/events/whatever is absolutely necessary.

There's a middle ground of influence that's ideal.

[AdaMaS]

Good and bad are the created concepts of society, to provide a guiding force of Dos and Do Nots in keeping the masses under control. One can learn from others and not be 'influenced'. One should always keep up, and continue learning. Such as, the sky is NOT blue. The time it takes rays of light to reach our eyes, blue and purple hues spread wider than reds, oranges, and yellows. Tis prismatics...a 'perceived' truth.

[Liander]

Laa shay'a waqui'n moutlaq bale kouloun moumkine.

[xxsacrificexx]

Laa shay'a waqui'n moutlaq bale kouloun moumkine.

"Reality is not absolute, everything is possible."

Nothing else to add, after that.

[Quade]

the answer to this kwestion and most kwestions wen ur weyin if its a good idea 2 do sumtin is this:

sometimes yes. sometimes no.

the hard part is gettin it 'rite'. wen yes n wen no.

n 'rite' aint gonna be 'rite' by evry body. ur 'rite' is absofuckinlutely someone elses 'rong'.

is it good to be open to influence?

sometimes yes sometimes no. figure out 4 urself when the answer is yes n when yes is rite by u n fuckin go wit it. peeps r gunna hate. peeps r gunna celebrate.

all that matters is that u feel good bout it n the people that matter will celebrate wit u or will figure out wit u were u went rong n the people who dun like it r gonna roast ur ass.

n as long as the world turns thats just the way its gunna fuckin b.

[ophelia]

Being open to influence is good, but being completely believing of everything you hear is not. Weighing information, validating it, using it to formulate opinions, but also allowing yourself the breadth and space to formulate your own ideas about people/events/whatever is absolutely necessary.

There's a middle ground of influence that's ideal.

This.