Once more into the fray

[Age]

Well every individual human being is an individual human being, right?
[...]
1. Why is a 'stable way' necessary for building and maintaining peace, in a society?

2. Why is treating every one, as an individual, so-called 'acting in a stable way', exactly? For example, why would treating groups of human beings like, for example, children, and, adults differently, or just treating all human beings as 'human beings' the same, not be a so-called 'stable way'?

Everyone human being is an individual, yes.

Unfortunately some forget or disregard that fact and end up treating other individuals based on superficial simplifications or group based generalization (e.g. it seems to me that all left handed people are like X -> you are left handed -> you are like X!).

That adult human beings separate one thing into different categories and/or groups only happens conceptually, and that adult human beings do this is a very, very necessary part of the human brain being able to comprehend and make sense of 'the world' or Universe in which it has found itself within.

So, separating, again conceptually only, 'things' into apparently separate and different 'groups' is all well and good to be able to make sense and obtain understanding of 'things'. However, there is really only the 'human being', which is actually the only 'separated' from all of the animals 'group', which needs to be 'looked at' and 'understood' here to learn and comprehend here. After all all 'other apparent groups' are, literally, nothing more than just individual human beings trying their hardest to 'separate' "themselves" from other individual human beings. All individual human beings are 'individual' anyway. So, there is no need to 'try to' 'separate' in this way anyway.

Oh, and by the way, the only actual 'other group' here is the separation between 'children' from 'adults', but this done more so when 'looking at', making sense of, and 'discovering' actual morality issues in Life.

But, to just make sense of and understand things for now, just the 'one group' 'human being', and how absolutely within every individual human body there is an individual person, is all that is really needed to be known here, for 'now'.

Acting in this way is unstable, because it gives individuals reasons to dislike and distrust each other.

Only older human beings do dislike and/or distrust other individual human beings. And, they only do this because of Wrong and/or False teachings, which they had to endure through, from even older human beings, who were taught, and thus had learned, the exact same Wrong and/or False things that lead up to disliking and/or distrusting each other. They are just teaching what they were taught, for they had, yet, come to know better.

People who dislike and distrust each other are unlikely to want to work together towards common goals, such as maintaining a peaceful civilization, which is the goal of civility.

One could say that 'civility' is the result obtained after the goal of wanting to live in peace and in harmony with one another, as One, is being achieved.

This is why it is better to act in a stable way, which is to treat others as individuals.

But, my question here was also asking, 'Why is treating every one, as an individual, so-called 'acting in a stable way', exactly?'

See, I could treat every one, as an individual, while still disliking, distrusting, and/or disrespecting any or even all of this individuals at the exact same time. Surely, doing this is 'not stable' in your view, right?

When it comes to adults and children, there are differences in maturity which have to be taken into account when granting rights,

Hang on, when did 'granting rights' ever come 'into the picture' here?

And, who and/or what, exactly, has 'the right' to 'grant rights', anyway?

but drawing the line at 18-20 years is just a matter of practicality. Adulthood could be determined individually based on some tests, but it is not a big issue as everyone will eventually pass that age threshold anyway. Patience is a virtue, which those who mature quicker should understand.

There are a few different things to 'look at', and 'delve into' here.

1. If a 'civil society' wants to look at, judge, try, and see individuals as adults or as children, then an 'age' when one becomes one from the other has to be sorted out, agreed upon, and accepted by absolutely every one, first.

2. Who formulates, hands out, and decides upon the results of any or all tests of so-called 'adulthood' here?

3. If patience is really a virtue, then this could just be explained and taught to young children who could understand this, exactly. Of course, only if adults were being patient, with them, and thus showed them what True patience really is, exactly, through and by examples. Also, understanding that patience is a virtue in absolutely no way at all means that the one with the understanding will 'just be patient'.

Every, and all, individual human beings need the exact same things, which is about only four things, right?
[...]
3. One could only treat every one based on factual, or actual, needs, and not just on wants, collectively nor arbitrarily, only once one has learned and knows the actual difference between human wants, and, human needs, right? Do you yet know what human beings actually 'need', and thus can also distinguish between human beings' 'needs', from what are just 'wants'?

And these four things are... survival related?

Yes.

The simplest civilized society would have two purposes:
Primary: Provide all individuals with what they need (factually for survival)
Secondary: Allow all individuals to do what they want (arbitrarily as long as it does not contradict the primary purpose)

This is already known, and well understood.

This way it is possible to make the distinction between needs and wants.

But the distinction between what are 'needs' and what are 'just wants' is already known, and well understood, also.

What individuals need includes what needs to be done to maintain society based on the current situation we live in (e.g paying taxes is not what many want to do, but it is needed.)

If this is what you think or believe, then you are a very, very long, long way off knowing the actual distinction between 'needs' and 'wants', and what is actually needed to create an ever-lasting Truly 'civil' peaceful and harmonious life for, and with, every one.

What human beings 'need', individually or collectively, is the exact same thing. And, what human beings 'need' is absolutely certainly not what is done to maintain society, based on the 'current situation' at all. In fact the exact opposite is True.

And, if you or absolutely anyone would like to delve further into this, then that would be absolutely great.

But, each individual human being has the exact same needs. This knowledge was already been arrived at, after obtaining the facts.

There are other facts to consider when it comes to putting these ideas into practice. Armchair philosophy is just the beginning.

For instance, finding a path from this point in time to a future point in time where society has become more civilized requires a lot of searching for facts and understanding.

But the 'facts' and 'understanding', which are needed here, have already been obtained, and thus are already known. But, obviously, not necessarily by some, nor even most, yet.

After all not everyone agrees on this way of life and many act in all sorts of arbitrary ways (particularly in politics) at the moment.

But absolutely every one does agree, exactly, on the 'way of life', which each all want to live anyway.

How to convince others to change their ways is a difficult task which has no ending.

1. Trying to 'convince' any one of anything is more or less a waste and fruitless task.

2. If one thinks that is some thing that others need 'convincing' of, then this is a sign that what is thought or believed needed 'to be convinced of' is not that True nor Right anyway. Or, that 'that one' who thinks or believes that is it others who 'need convincing' has still quite some more things to work out, discover, learn, comprehend, and understand "themselves" anyway.

What is 'relevant', or not, is relative to the individual observer, or the individual human being, right?
[...]
4. Revealing 'relevant' information, honestly, is way too 'relative' to be of any actual success or of any real usefulness here. For example, I might rape and murder a child, for example, but then find or decide that revealing 'that information' is not 'relevant' here. But, which some other individual, like "yourself", might consider revealing 'that information' would be 'relevant'. (But, without any direct guidance nor correlation to what the 'relevant' word is, literally, relevant to, each and every individual human being could be on their own, here.)

Relevant related to maintaining a peaceful civilization, which is the goal of civility.

But how can I get you to be Honest, which is relevant, related to a peaceful society?

If someone doesn't want this, for some arbitrary reason, then they can value other things, but the result of that might not be maintainable.

So, to you, if someone just chooses to not do what is conducive to a peaceful society, then they can just 'value other things' anyway, right?

A society where murder goes constantly unpunished would not remain standing for long. It would be beneficial to leave that society, fast, and anyone with the means to do so would do so.

But how does one leave earth? The whole collective human society in the days when this is being written, which was and is caused and created by adult human beings, is one that no child wants to be born into, and have to live and endure within.

Also, and by the way, I found that by just treating absolutely every one with Trust, Respect, Understanding, Empathy, with Loyalty (Honesty), Openness, Voluntary, Enthusiasm, with and for absolutely every individual one, then this is what causes, creates, and keeps what you call 'civility', in place. Or, what I just call, 'Every one just living in peace and harmony together, as One'.

Except it would not.

So, if every one was just Trusting, Respecting, Understanding, Empathizing, being Loyal (Honest), Open, and doing so completely unforced absolute Voluntary Enthusiasm, then, to you, this would not create and cause peace and harmony, and thus create and cause 'civility' as well, right?

Evil individuals exist and they would abuse you immediately if blindly trusted or respected.

I never saw the word 'blindly' above here. So, why did you introduce that word here, 'now'?

Also, there are no evil individuals existing. Everyone human being is an individual, correct?

And, unfortunately some forget or disregard that fact and end up treating other individuals based on superficial simplifications or group based generalizations, (for example, some separate individual human beings into False and/or Wrong group based generalizations like; 'evil' and 'good'), right?

They would hide their true intentions and act in unstable, but subtle ways to twist your empathy and loyalty so that your life, and society at large, would slide away from harmony and unity towards greed and destruction.

Why, among adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, it is always 'they', who do wrong or who are evil? It is never ever 'us' nor 'me'?

The answer/s to this question are quite revealing, and 'telling' as some might say here.

Civility, on the other hand, works once all individuals who want to live in peace (80%, 90%, 95% of the population?)

But, absolutely every young child, that is 100% of them, just make things absolutely clear here, want to live in peace. And, let 'us' not forget that absolutely every one of your adults was once one of those children.

demand civility from those who use political, social and economic power.

1. Once one has 'power' of another one, then 'civility' has already gone.

2. Demanding absolutely anything from another means 'civility' has also already gone.

Once that is achieved, then unstable actions become very difficult to pull off.

What you are doing, which countless have before you, is expecting and/or demanding 'others' do and behave in 'a way' that 'you want'.

Not impossible though, because perfection will always be out of reach. Good enough is good enough.

So, for example, I 'demand' 'civility' from you, and you 'decide' you will not do what it is that I 'demand', then what happens, exactly?

What I think is that they are your individual concepts,

I thank you for the questioning, nonetheless I should have been more clear. By "these two concepts" I meant civility and philosophy.

That is what I thought you were referring to, exactly. And, thus why I responded the way I did there.

Do you use these words in your thinking or go with some others?

That would all depend on what I am 'thinking about', exactly.

[Walker]

Good direct questions. Here are direct answers.

1. Civility, according to my formulation, means building and maintaining peace in society (civilization) by acting in a stable way.

Stable actions are based on
a) treating everyone, including yourself, as an individual.

That needs something extra. For example, you may be dealing with a cop who appears to be an individual doofus, but when listening to the species imperative of preservation you would be advised to treat him as a respresentive (or representative) of his social role as cop with death riding on his hip, rather than treat him like a doofus individual.

[Mr. Civility]

That needs something extra. For example, you may be dealing with a cop who appears to be an individual doofus, but when listening to the species imperative of preservation you would be advised to treat him as a respresentive (or representative) of his social role as cop with death riding on his hip, rather than treat him like a doofus individual.

I would treat this person as a doofus with a gun and the power to enforce the law, but also someone with a duty to use said gun and power responsibly, according to the law. In other words, taking into consideration all attributes that comprise this particular individual including their role and its possible effects on the individual's actions.

In practice I would communicate my case very plainly and answer all the questions asked, but also keep in mind that a doofus might start goofing around with a gun. No need to act based on assumptions draw from the imaginary group (cops), which at best would offer average statistical insights into how similar situations have played out.

[Mr. Civility]

See, I could treat every one, as an individual, while still disliking, distrusting, and/or disrespecting any or even all of this individuals at the exact same time. Surely, doing this is 'not stable' in your view, right?

Yes, you can, so the answer is no. The keyword here was "unlikely". Dislike and even distrust can and will likely always occur, but if individuals can overcome them then there is no problem. How likely is that to occur, though? Civility is about the actions taken, which can be stable or unstable.

Hang on, when did 'granting rights' ever come 'into the picture' here?

And, who and/or what, exactly, has 'the right' to 'grant rights', anyway?

Rights are granted and enforced by other people, that is, governments. Because societies are run by governments, rights are an important tool to achieve civility. Without equal individual rights, civility becomes very difficult or even impossible.

There are a few different things to 'look at', and 'delve into' here.

1. If a 'civil society' wants to look at, judge, try, and see individuals as adults or as children, then an 'age' when one becomes one from the other has to be sorted out, agreed upon, and accepted by absolutely every one, first.

2. Who formulates, hands out, and decides upon the results of any or all tests of so-called 'adulthood' here?

3. If patience is really a virtue, then this could just be explained and taught to young children who could understand this, exactly. Of course, only if adults were being patient, with them, and thus showed them what True patience really is, exactly, through and by examples. Also, understanding that patience is a virtue in absolutely no way at all means that the one with the understanding will 'just be patient'.

1. "by absolute everyone" translates to "the government" in democratic societies.
2. If such tests were used, the answer would once again be "the government".
3. Yes, let us teach everyone the virtue of patience ! It is very useful especially for youngsters, when there is an age limit on something set by "the government".

But the 'facts' and 'understanding', which are needed here, have already been obtained, and thus are already known. But, obviously, not necessarily by some, nor even most, yet.
[...]
But absolutely every one does agree, exactly, on the 'way of life', which each all want to live anyway.
[...]
1. Trying to 'convince' any one of anything is more or less a waste and fruitless task.

2. If one thinks that is some thing that others need 'convincing' of, then this is a sign that what is thought or believed needed 'to be convinced of' is not that True nor Right anyway. Or, that 'that one' who thinks or believes that is it others who 'need convincing' has still quite some more things to work out, discover, learn, comprehend, and understand "themselves" anyway.

These statements seem to be in conflict. If "facts and understanding" are already known (by you?), but not known by everyone, then how come everyone does agree on "the" way of life?

It is the, "not everyone knows everything" part where convincing comes in. The first thing is to convince someone that they should look outside of their box and learn something new about the world.

But how can I get you to be Honest, which is relevant, related to a peaceful society?

You don't need to convince me , honesty is already one of the three core values of civility.

Convincing others can be achieved by gathering examples, from the real world, which show how dishonesty in particular leads to all sorts of unnecessary conflicts and how honesty will mend those situations.

In general, dishonest individuals have to keep spending energy remembering their own lies and keep hiding facts which would blow their cover. This kind of work is unnecessary and would be better spent doing something else.

So, to you, if someone just chooses to not do what is conducive to a peaceful society, then they can just 'value other things' anyway, right?

In practice, yes, but, as said, that might not be maintainable. In other words, other individuals are likely not going to take a beating lying face down and, for instance, put the non-peaceful person in prison. "You get what you deserve", as the saying goes.

So, if every one was just Trusting, Respecting, Understanding, Empathizing, being Loyal (Honest), Open, and doing so completely unforced absolute Voluntary Enthusiasm, then, to you, this would not create and cause peace and harmony, and thus create and cause 'civility' as well, right?

No. "If everyone did X" is not a good argument, because just about every ideology would become practical that way (yes, even Anarchy!)
Your original claim seemed to be written from the perspective of a single individual, so the answer is still no. This individual would get abused.

But how does one leave earth? The whole collective human society in the days when this is being written, which was and is caused and created by adult human beings, is one that no child wants to be born into, and have to live and endure within.

Despair is a choice. I see plenty of differences between current societies when it comes to civility.

I never saw the word 'blindly' above here. So, why did you introduce that word here, 'now'?

"treating absolutely every one with Trust, [...] Enthusiasm" is blindness. When no differences between individuals are taken into consideration, vision is no longer needed.

Also, there are no evil individuals existing. Everyone human being is an individual, correct?

And, unfortunately some forget or disregard that fact and end up treating other individuals based on superficial simplifications or group based generalizations, (for example, some separate individual human beings into False and/or Wrong group based generalizations like; 'evil' and 'good'), right?
[...]
Why, among adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, it is always 'they', who do wrong or who are evil? It is never ever 'us' nor 'me'?

Here's a somewhat pedantic definition for evil, off the top of my head:
Deciding, with self-awareness, to use actions which harm other individuals despite having other actions available, which achieve the same goals without harming other individuals.

Individuals who behave in this way have existed and do, unfortunately, still exist. No need to make any simplifications or group based generalizations to prove that fact. Because evilness lies in decision and action, anyone can be evil and also stop being evil. Nonetheless, the reason for evilness might also be permanent (psychopathy).

1. Once one has 'power' of another one, then 'civility' has already gone.

2. Demanding absolutely anything from another means 'civility' has also already gone.

I would claim the opposite. As long as power differences (dependencies) between individuals exist, civility is needed to achieve peaceful coexistence. Once every individual becomes completely independent from each other, then civility is no longer needed ! Everyone could do whatever they wanted, because nothing needed to be done together anymore to keep everyone alive.

What you are doing, which countless have before you, is expecting and/or demanding 'others' do and behave in 'a way' that 'you want'.

What I "want" is irrelevant. This is about what is "needed" for peaceful and stable coexistence. All I can do, as an individual, is to spread the word and try to convince others (voluntarily) to act accordingly. Demands are usually not taken well by people and expectation alone without education is mere wishful thinking.

So, for example, I 'demand' 'civility' from you, and you 'decide' you will not do what it is that I 'demand', then what happens, exactly?

I don't like demands. I would ask you to explain what you mean by "civility" and how acting according to it would improve my life as well as the lives of others. If you made a reasonable case, I would likely change my behavior, thank you for the useful information and spread the idea to others who could benefit from it.

Oh, and by the way, the only actual 'other group' here is the separation between 'children' from 'adults', but this done more so when 'looking at', making sense of, and 'discovering' actual morality issues in Life.

Only older human beings do dislike and/or distrust other individual human beings. And, they only do this because of Wrong and/or False teachings, which they had to endure through, from even older human beings, who were taught, and thus had learned, the exact same Wrong and/or False things that lead up to disliking and/or distrusting each other. They are just teaching what they were taught, for they had, yet, come to know better.
[...]
But, absolutely every young child, that is 100% of them, just make things absolutely clear here, want to live in peace. And, let 'us' not forget that absolutely every one of your adults was once one of those children.

You seem to have some kind of an idea (or ideology even) behind these responses centered around the concepts of child/adult and their differences. This would be a good time to explain the factual (or assumptive) foundation behind this line of thinking, which you seem to be doing.

1. Why is distrust and dislike only a learned/taught phenomena, which children are otherwise incapable of?
2. Why does every young child want to live in peace?
3. Where do you draw the line between child/adult, young/old?

But the distinction between what are 'needs' and what are 'just wants' is already known, and well understood, also.

If this is what you think or believe, then you are a very, very long, long way off knowing the actual distinction between 'needs' and 'wants', and what is actually needed to create an ever-lasting Truly 'civil' peaceful and harmonious life for, and with, every one.

What human beings 'need', individually or collectively, is the exact same thing. And, what human beings 'need' is absolutely certainly not what is done to maintain society, based on the 'current situation' at all. In fact the exact opposite is True.

And, if you or absolutely anyone would like to delve further into this, then that would be absolutely great.

There is no need to beat around the bush with allusions. Do delve deeper directly

[Age]

See, I could treat every one, as an individual, while still disliking, distrusting, and/or disrespecting any or even all of this individuals at the exact same time. Surely, doing this is 'not stable' in your view, right?

Yes, you can, so the answer is no. The keyword here was "unlikely". Dislike and even distrust can and will likely always occur,

But, considering that 'dislike' is not occurring NOW by everyone, your claim that 'dislike will likely always occur' is already False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. And, will remain so while not everyone is 'disliking' anyone.

Also, the 'unlikely' was not the so-called 'keyword' as it was not in the quotes of yours that I was actually responding to.

See, what you wrote and claimed here was:
'Treating other individuals not as individuals but in group generalized terms is unstable, because it gives individuals reasons to dislike and distrust each other.'

I asked you a clarifying question, which then admitted that, actually, one could treat every one as an individual and still dislike and/or distrust any individuals. So, this was the 'key message' that I wanted to get clarified, and get across here.

And, now that I have done that, the new 'key message' that I want to relay and get across here 'now' is that because I do not dislike any one, your new claim about dislike will likely always occur is already False.

but if individuals can overcome them then there is no problem.

When, and if, you find out and discover, or learn, and understand what the 'problem' word actually means and/or is actually referring to, exactly, then you will see and know how that there is, literally, no problem at all here.

How likely is that to occur, though?

In regards to 'dislike', then considering that there is not one that I 'dislike', then this has already occurred. And, in regards to 'distrust', then when you human beings stop being 'dishonest', then 'distrust' will also disappear as well.

Civility is about the actions taken, which can be stable or unstable.

Okay. And I was just pointing out that by just treating every human being as an individual human being is not an action that will necessarily create nor cause a so-called 'stable environment' at all. For the reasons that I have already provided.

Although the 'stable environment', which you are talking about and referring to here, can be caused and/or created through a rather simple and easy process, for its full potential to be Truly recognized and noticed would take a generation, but from then on it would a Truly exponential process.

One just needs to discover, or learn, and understand the 'how-to' for a 'stable environment' to come about, and to fruition.

Hang on, when did 'granting rights' ever come 'into the picture' here?

And, who and/or what, exactly, has 'the right' to 'grant rights', anyway?

Rights are granted and enforced by other people, that is, governments.

And, again, who and/or what, exactly, gave governments 'rights' to 'grant rights', anyway?

Because societies are run by governments,

Some might be, but not all are.

rights are an important tool to achieve civility.

Well considering the actual fact that since 'governments' have come into human society, the actual 'natural rights' of individual human beings has been decreasing and/or diminishing.

'governments', which are run on 'money', and thus 'rely on money', are the best things in Life to be 'handing out' or 'granting' 'rights' to you human beings.

Unless, of course, one has been 'indoctrinated' to believe so.

Without equal individual rights, civility becomes very difficult or even impossible.

And, who and/or what is the main instigator in 'taking away' 'individual rights', mostly, throughout the whole earth?

In case you are unaware, the answer is; 'governments'.

There are a few different things to 'look at', and 'delve into' here.

1. If a 'civil society' wants to look at, judge, try, and see individuals as adults or as children, then an 'age' when one becomes one from the other has to be sorted out, agreed upon, and accepted by absolutely every one, first.

2. Who formulates, hands out, and decides upon the results of any or all tests of so-called 'adulthood' here?

3. If patience is really a virtue, then this could just be explained and taught to young children who could understand this, exactly. Of course, only if adults were being patient, with them, and thus showed them what True patience really is, exactly, through and by examples. Also, understanding that patience is a virtue in absolutely no way at all means that the one with the understanding will 'just be patient'.

1. "by absolute everyone" translates to "the government" in democratic societies.

And, it is those so-called 'democratic societies', run by so-called 'democratic governments', in the days when this is being written, who have are still causing the most Wrong, and ills, in 'the world'.

Also, 'governments' are not 'run' 'by everyone', 'for everyone'. 'governments' are 'run' 'by some', mostly 'for only some'. Which, very coincidentally, 'the some' being the ones 'running' 'the government' and a select few other, 'friends, family, and/or acquaintances.

2. If such tests were used, the answer would once again be "the government".

If you want to give and hand over all of 'your power' and 'control' to 'a government', 'run by a few', then by all means you are absolutely free to. But, by doing so, you will never ever live in what you call a 'stable society'.

The only True and Right way that the 'stable society', which you speak of and allude to here, will come about is never by the way you are talking about here now.

The True and Right way is 'another way'.

3. Yes, let us teach everyone the virtue of patience !

Who and/or what, exactly, is the 'us' here that you are suggesting 'teach everyone' here?

It is very useful especially for youngsters, when there is an age limit on something set by "the government".

But, it is only you adults who are the, only, 'issue' here.

Children copy and follow what they 'see' and 'hear'.

If children 'see' no evil and 'hear' no even, then children will grow up doing no evil, as well.

But the 'facts' and 'understanding', which are needed here, have already been obtained, and thus are already known. But, obviously, not necessarily by some, nor even most, yet.
[...]
But absolutely every one does agree, exactly, on the 'way of life', which each all want to live anyway.
[...]
1. Trying to 'convince' any one of anything is more or less a waste and fruitless task.

2. If one thinks that is some thing that others need 'convincing' of, then this is a sign that what is thought or believed needed 'to be convinced of' is not that True nor Right anyway. Or, that 'that one' who thinks or believes that is it others who 'need convincing' has still quite some more things to work out, discover, learn, comprehend, and understand "themselves" anyway.

These statements seem to be in conflict. If "facts and understanding" are already known (by you?), but not known by everyone, then how come everyone does agree on "the" way of life?

Because 'the way of life' is 'innately' 'wanted and desired' within absolutely everyone.

It is the, "not everyone knows everything" part where convincing comes in.

What do you mean by this here?

The first thing is to convince someone that they should look outside of their box and learn something new about the world.

Why does absolutely anyone need 'convincing' of this?

Absolutely every child is born just naturally doing this anyway.

Also, why are you not so-called 'looking outside of your box' and ' learning something new about 'the world' ', right now?

For example, why are you not asking clarifying questions, in regards to some of what I have been saying and/or pointing out here, and learning some new/er things?

Do you need to be 'convinced' that you need to learn new or more things here?

if yes, then how could I or absolutely any one 'convince' you that you need to 'look outside of your own personal box', and 'to learn new things', exactly?

But how can I get you to be Honest, which is relevant, related to a peaceful society?

You don't need to convince me , honesty is already one of the three core values of civility.

But just saying what are core values to 'civility' does not in any way mean that you are actually doing those 'core values' "yourself".

Also, just about all already know that, 'Honesty is the best policy', and that 'Being Open', is the best and only real way 'to learn new things', but just knowing these things does not mean that any one is, nor has to be.

Convincing others can be achieved by gathering examples, from the real world, which show how dishonesty in particular leads to all sorts of unnecessary conflicts and how honesty will mend those situations.

Is there absolutely any one who does not yet know this already?

Is there absolutely any one who needs to be 'convinced' that 'dishonesty' is Wrong or that it leads to unnecessary conflicts?

In general, dishonest individuals have to keep spending energy remembering their own lies and keep hiding facts which would blow their cover.

If absolutely any adult human being here thinks, believes, or says that they are honest and thus are not dishonest, then they are being 'Dishonest', not just to 'others', but also, and probably more so, to "themselves".

In other words every one of you adult human beings are 'Dishonest'.

And, once you are Truly Honest about this, anyway, irrefutable Fact, then the quicker 'the way of life', which every one wants and desires anyway, can and will come about.

'Honesty', besides, literally, being the best policy, is also, literally, 'the key' to unlocking all of the, previous, meaningful so-called 'mysteries of Life'.

This kind of work is unnecessary and would be better spent doing something else.

Just about every thing you adult human beings did, in the days when this was being written, was, literally, completely 'unnecessary work', (in and for your learned and obtained and gained insatiable desire and want of 'more money'), which would have been better spent doing something else, like, for example, protecting, caring for, and guiding your children on and into what is, literally, Right and good, in Life. In other words 'loving them' properly and Correctly.

However, evolving into and up to 'learning' the 'how-to' to make and create 'the life', that every one Truly wants and desires, is just 'a process', which could not and can not be hurried. All things 'take time', and 'Peace in Harmony with and for every one' is just another 'thing', which 'takes time'.

So, to you, if someone just chooses to not do what is conducive to a peaceful society, then they can just 'value other things' anyway, right?

In practice, yes, but, as said, that might not be maintainable.

So, if one just 'values money', which is obviously not conducive to a Truly 'stable environment and society' for every one, to you anyway, they can just 'choose' to do that instead, and 'in practice'.

In other words, other individuals are likely not going to take a beating lying face down and, for instance, put the non-peaceful person in prison. "You get what you deserve", as the saying goes.

How, exactly, is putting human beings in locked caged prison cells conducive to a Truly 'Peaceful and Harmonious world', for every one?

What you are saying 'to do' here, or 'to put into action' is just what is already happening and occurring here, 'now', when this is being written. Which is obviously very far removed from a Truly 'stable environment/society'.

So, if every one was just Trusting, Respecting, Understanding, Empathizing, being Loyal (Honest), Open, and doing so completely unforced absolute Voluntary Enthusiasm, then, to you, this would not create and cause peace and harmony, and thus create and cause 'civility' as well, right?

No. "If everyone did X" is not a good argument,

So, to you, if every one was doing 'X', which is what is needed for Peace and Harmony to prevail for every one, then even doing 'X/what is needed' will not cause nor create what 'it' will cause and create.

Are you sure of this?

because just about every ideology would become practical that way (yes, even Anarchy!)

This does not, logically, follow.

If 'the goal' is create a so-called 'stable society', and 'what is needed' to create 'the goal' becomes known, what you are now saying or implying is that even if 'what is needed' to create 'the goal' was done, then 'the goal' would still not 'come about', right?

If you are not saying nor implying this, then what are you saying here, exactly?

Your original claim seemed to be written from the perspective of a single individual, so the answer is still no. This individual would get abused.

I do not know what you are talking about and referring to here.

But how does one leave earth? The whole collective human society in the days when this is being written, which was and is caused and created by adult human beings, is one that no child wants to be born into, and have to live and endure within.

Despair is a choice.

So what?

What is this in reference to, exactly?

Abusing is a choice also.

And, 'despair' would not even be 'a choice', if there was 'no abuse'.

I see plenty of differences between current societies when it comes to civility.

So what?

Also, will you list these 'plenty of differences', which you, supposedly, see between 'current societies', when it comes to civility?

Obviously, none of the 'current societies', in the days when this is being written, besides maybe only a very small number, are actually 'civil'.

I never saw the word 'blindly' above here. So, why did you introduce that word here, 'now'?

"treating absolutely every one with Trust, [...] Enthusiasm" is blindness.

Okay, if you say and believe so.

When no differences between individuals are taken into consideration, vision is no longer needed.

Obviously, you have yet not read and comprehend the actual words that I said, wrote, and used here.

Why would you even begin to presume that 'no difference between individuals are taken into consideration'?

Could this be because of 'blindness', also?

Or, do you not suffer from this 'condition' at all here?

Also, there are no evil individuals existing. Everyone human being is an individual, correct?

And, unfortunately some forget or disregard that fact and end up treating other individuals based on superficial simplifications or group based generalizations, (for example, some separate individual human beings into False and/or Wrong group based generalizations like; 'evil' and 'good'), right?
[...]
Why, among adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, it is always 'they', who do wrong or who are evil? It is never ever 'us' nor 'me'?

Here's a somewhat pedantic definition for evil, off the top of my head:
Deciding, with self-awareness, to use actions which harm other individuals despite having other actions available, which achieve the same goals without harming other individuals.

Individuals who behave in this way have existed and do, unfortunately, still exist.

So, 'you', have personally, 'grouped' 'some human beings', into another 'grouped based generalization', and so from then on 'look at' and 'see' 'that group' and 'all of those', which you have personally 'placed' and/or 'put into' 'that group' as 'the same', right?

No need to make any simplifications or group based generalizations to prove that fact. Because evilness lies in decision and action, anyone can be evil and also stop being evil. Nonetheless, the reason for evilness might also be permanent (psychopathy).

So, what is the reason why you do 'evil things'?

Or, are 'you' another one of 'those' who consider "themselves" to not be in 'that group' of 'those' 'who do evil things'?

Which, once again, brings 'me' back to, 'Why do so many adult human beings consider that it always 'them' or do Wrong or evil, and/or are bad or evil people, but never ever even just consider that what they, "themselves", are doing could be bad, Wrong, abusive, or evil?

Maybe you could enlighten to the readers here why you are one of 'these people', who do this very thing here "mr. civility"?

1. Once one has 'power' of another one, then 'civility' has already gone.

2. Demanding absolutely anything from another means 'civility' has also already gone.

I would claim the opposite. As long as power differences (dependencies) between individuals exist, civility is needed to achieve peaceful coexistence.

So, well to this one anyway, 'power' and 'control' over 'others' is needed for a 'civil and peaceful existence'.

Now, there is absolutely no wonderment at all as to why actual Peace and Harmony for human beings took so, so, so long to come about and be achieved.

Once every individual becomes completely independent from each other, then civility is no longer needed !

So, well again to this one anyway, once every individual new born is completely independent, from every other individual human being, then civility is no longer needed.

Everyone could do whatever they wanted, because nothing needed to be done together anymore to keep everyone alive.

I am not sure how this one thinks new born individual human beings can keep alive, this way.

What you are doing, which countless have before you, is expecting and/or demanding 'others' do and behave in 'a way' that 'you want'.

What I "want" is irrelevant.

Really?

If yes, then why is 'you' desperately trying to argue for 'convincing' 'others' of what you see is 'good and/or right', and also what you 'want', 'now', supposedly, irrelevant?

This is about what is "needed" for peaceful and stable coexistence.

If so, then just say and write down, what you 'see' and believe, is 'what is needed', exactly, for a 'peaceful and stable coexistence', and then 'let us' decide to 'see' if this is what 'we' agree with and accept, as well.

Previously you talking about 'convincing' others of some things, comes across as you 'wanting' to 'take control' and 'have power' over others. Which, let us not forget, is one of the things that you say is 'needed' for a 'peaceful and stable coexistence', too.

All I can do, as an individual, is to spread the word and try to convince others (voluntarily) to act accordingly.

The words 'convince others, voluntarily, to do some thing' is a contradict of terms and/or an oxymoron.

Now, considering that I have already partly explained how a Truly peaceful, harmonious, and stable existence can, and will, come about, while also explaining, partly, 'what is needed' for this existence, how about you start informing 'us' readers here 'what is needed', for 'a peaceful and stable coexistence'.

So, then 'we' at least have some thing to 'look at', and 'discuss' here, for now.

Demands are usually not taken well by people and expectation alone without education is mere wishful thinking.

Okay. So, how about you start 'just listing' 'the actual things', which you perceive are needed, for 'a peaceful and stable coexistence', and then start explaining how 'those expectations of yours' can and will be 'educated' to 'the people'?

So far, you talking about 'convincing' others of things has not been helping you here.

So, for example, I 'demand' 'civility' from you, and you 'decide' you will not do what it is that I 'demand', then what happens, exactly?

I don't like demands.

So, you 'now' claim this, but you also did write:
Civility, on the other hand, works once all individuals who want to live in peace (80%, 90%, 95% of the population?) demand civility from those who use political, social and economic power.

So, besides the obvious contradiction here, there are many things Wrong here, on many fronts.

I would ask you to explain what you mean by "civility" and how acting according to it would improve my life as well as the lives of others. If you made a reasonable case, I would likely change my behavior, thank you for the useful information and spread the idea to others who could benefit from it.

1. Instead of saying or writing, 'I would ask you ...', I suggest that you 'just do ask ...', as this will show me that you really are interested. Saying, 'I would ask ...', can be inferred as that 'you would', IF other things existed.

2. you started this thread by saying and writing;
My goal in life is to defend and advocate for civility (which according to my own formulation includes a lot of philosophy) in any all all ways possible be it online or offline in writing, speech, art, what have you.

3. Now, if you really would like 'me' to explain what 'I' mean by the 'civility' word, then firstly, I would probably very rarely, if ever, use 'that word' in relation to what creating and causing a Truly peaceful world for every one. But, to me, the word 'civility' just means or just refers to a form of formal politeness and/or courtesy in behavior or speech, and not much else. And, to me, acting according to 'this' might improve your life, as well as the life of others, only in that there might not be as much resentment or as much dislike as there is among you and others 'currently'

4. Also, I am not 'here' to change your behavior. To me, how you behave or misbehave is your choice alone, and solely up to you, alone.

However, if anyone would like to discuss how a Truly 'peaceful and harmonious world' , for every one, as One, can be and will be reached and achieved, then I would love to discuss this.

Oh, and by the way, the only actual 'other group' here is the separation between 'children' from 'adults', but this done more so when 'looking at', making sense of, and 'discovering' actual morality issues in Life.

Only older human beings do dislike and/or distrust other individual human beings. And, they only do this because of Wrong and/or False teachings, which they had to endure through, from even older human beings, who were taught, and thus had learned, the exact same Wrong and/or False things that lead up to disliking and/or distrusting each other. They are just teaching what they were taught, for they had, yet, come to know better.
[...]
But, absolutely every young child, that is 100% of them, just make things absolutely clear here, want to live in peace. And, let 'us' not forget that absolutely every one of your adults was once one of those children.

You seem to have some kind of an idea (or ideology even) behind these responses centered around the concepts of child/adult and their differences.

Not just do I seem to have some kind of an idea, I actually do have 'an idea'.

This would be a good time to explain the factual (or assumptive) foundation behind this line of thinking, which you seem to be doing.

It might be a 'good time', but I think 'here', in this forum, is not a 'good', or at least the 'best', 'place'.

1. Why is distrust and dislike only a learned/taught phenomena, which children are otherwise incapable of?

No new born human baby distrusts nor dislikes absolutely any one, because they have had no previous reason to.

For example no new born baby is going to dislike nor distrust another human being who puts a breast or bottle full of milk in front of them. And, no young child is going to distrust nor dislike another human being after the child has, for example, accidentally thrown a ball through a window. And, when a child is asked, 'Who did this?', every child will respond with 'Me'. However, as soon as that child is yelled at, ridiculed, humiliated, punished, or any other 'negative emotion' is felt, then that child has quickly, and very quickly, learned, and thus been taught, to not like and/or also to not trust that other human being. And, the amount of dislike/distrust the child then becomes to have depends on how much ridicule, yelled at, punishment, et cetera that child had to endure through.

No child has a fear of the Truth nor of being Honest, that is; until they learned, and/or were taught, to. No child also has a dislike nor distrust of another human being, that is; until they learned, and/or were taught, to.

And, the dislike and distrust of 'others' can be learned and taught just from, over, hearing adults talking about the dislike and/or distrust that they have, for 'another/others'.

[*] Why does every young child want to live in peace?

1. For the simple answer, 'Would any child not want to live nor be in peace?', and, 'Why would any child not want to live in peace?'

2. Was there ever a time in your younger childhood that you did not want to live nor be in peace?

3. But for the Truly 'why' answer here one might need to delve down into the 'genetic make up' within the 'human being'. And, the best way 'this' might be 'seen' and understood is 'within you' "yourself", an adult human being. If you found a starving child, of any age, for example, at your front door, then is there any so-called 'fiber' in your whole body' that would 'want' to not bring that child inside, not feed them, and not be peaceful with them, or, would you 'want' to bring about discord and/or discomfort to them in some way?

If your answer is, 'No', here, then 'this make up' of being a 'human being' is, well to me, anyway ingrained within 'what being human' naturally really is.

To live in peace and and in harmony with one harmony is 'ingrained within' what 'being human' 'naturally is'.

After all, each and every one of 'us' absolutely 'needs' others for our very own survival, and this goes from birth to the time of, what is Wrongly called, 'death'. Now, of course, some one might be thinking that as 'an adult' 'we' do not 'need' another for our own survival, but, there is absolutely no purpose being alive, in 'this world', if you could not share it with another. Even if one is living in 'the wild', alone, if they are not 'sharing' that existence' with 'another', even if 'the other' is a bird, squirrel, or a mouse, or even a flower/plant, for example, and watching 'it/them' grow and survive/thrive as well, then what purpose is there for living, and being alive?

Living 'with' 'others', in peace and in harmony, is an 'instinct' built within what 'being a human being' is, exactly. Well, to me any way.

If anyone knows of a young child who does not, or did not, want to live in peace, then may be they could be presented for 'observation/questioning' to find out 'why not?'

[*] Where do you draw the line between child/adult, young/old?
[/list]

To me, there is no 'young' nor 'old', but there is certainly 'younger' and 'older'.

And, as for 'adult' and 'child' that is certainly not up to me to decide, nor for me to decide upon. To me, that is something that the whole society, is the whole earth or human being society, and not different broken fragments, and which all should agree upon, and once done then accepted, and follow. For example, at whatever age it is decided that one changes from 'a child' to 'an adult', then that is when one changed from not 'having no responsibility' to one 'having all responsibility'.

Which, like everything I mention and talk about here needs to be delved into further to become fully understood.

But the distinction between what are 'needs' and what are 'just wants' is already known, and well understood, also.

If this is what you think or believe, then you are a very, very long, long way off knowing the actual distinction between 'needs' and 'wants', and what is actually needed to create an ever-lasting Truly 'civil' peaceful and harmonious life for, and with, every one.

What human beings 'need', individually or collectively, is the exact same thing. And, what human beings 'need' is absolutely certainly not what is done to maintain society, based on the 'current situation' at all. In fact the exact opposite is True.

And, if you or absolutely anyone would like to delve further into this, then that would be absolutely great.

There is no need to beat around the bush with allusions. Do delve deeper directly

But, I could go on and on and on, delving deeper, and deeper, and deeper.

However, if no one is listening, because they are not Truly interested, then there was no need for me to.

If, however, if one is Truly interested in what I have to say and explain here, then they will come up with the 'specific things', which they Truly want to learn, and/or discover. here.

Now, if you would really like me to 'delve directly' into some 'thing' here, then I suggest that you just say what 'that' is, exactly.

Until then, since I was talking about 'needs' and 'wants' of human beings here, (among other things), then 'human beings':

Need; air, water, some nutrients, 'love'. (Please do not forget that the 'love' word is not yet agreed upon, nor 'known and understood fully' among you adult human beings in the days when this is being written, let alone known from 'my perspective' of things, yet), and shelter maybe? These are what you human beings 'need' to live and survive.

Just about everything else that are perceived as 'needs' are just 'wants'. Which are, obviously, not needed for your continual survival and existence.

[Mr. Civility]

But, considering that 'dislike' is not occurring NOW by everyone, your claim that 'dislike will likely always occur' is already False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. And, will remain so while not everyone is 'disliking' anyone.

Also, the 'unlikely' was not the so-called 'keyword' as it was not in the quotes of yours that I was actually responding to.

See, what you wrote and claimed here was:
'Treating other individuals not as individuals but in group generalized terms is unstable, because it gives individuals reasons to dislike and distrust each other.'

I asked you a clarifying question, which then admitted that, actually, one could treat every one as an individual and still dislike and/or distrust any individuals. So, this was the 'key message' that I wanted to get clarified, and get across here.

And, now that I have done that, the new 'key message' that I want to relay and get across here 'now' is that because I do not dislike any one, your new claim about dislike will likely always occur is already False.
[...]
When, and if, you find out and discover, or learn, and understand what the 'problem' word actually means and/or is actually referring to, exactly, then you will see and know how that there is, literally, no problem at all here.
[...]
In regards to 'dislike', then considering that there is not one that I 'dislike', then this has already occurred. And, in regards to 'distrust', then when you human beings stop being 'dishonest', then 'distrust' will also disappear as well.
[...]
So, to you, if every one was doing 'X', which is what is needed for Peace and Harmony to prevail for every one, then even doing 'X/what is needed' will not cause nor create what 'it' will cause and create.

Are you sure of this?
[...]
This does not, logically, follow.

If 'the goal' is create a so-called 'stable society', and 'what is needed' to create 'the goal' becomes known, what you are now saying or implying is that even if 'what is needed' to create 'the goal' was done, then 'the goal' would still not 'come about', right?
[...]
Really?

If yes, then why is 'you' desperately trying to argue for 'convincing' 'others' of what you see is 'good and/or right', and also what you 'want', 'now', supposedly, irrelevant?

I'm glad we agree on this matter on an individual basis . As said before, it is completely possible for individuals to not dislike/distrust anyone or not let dislike/distrust affect their behavior.

Nonetheless, when talking about society I'm talking about how all individuals behave in their own lives. What is the likelihood that all individuals do not dislike/distrust anyone or let dislike/distrust affect their behavior. I would call this unlikely again. You can go look for the original claim of unlikeliness if you want.

It is easy to imagine a logically valid world where "everyone just does X", substitute X for harmonious, empathetic, etc. activity and call it a day, but this argument is still not sound in reality, when it comes to fulfilling the needs of the people.

This is why my view on society and how it can be made more civil does not require all individuals to behave according to what I 'want', but rather enough individuals to behave in a civilized way to fulfill the 'needs' of the people. More on the needs at the end of this post.

Okay. And I was just pointing out that by just treating every human being as an individual human being is not an action that will necessarily create nor cause a so-called 'stable environment' at all. For the reasons that I have already provided.

Although the 'stable environment', which you are talking about and referring to here, can be caused and/or created through a rather simple and easy process, for its full potential to be Truly recognized and noticed would take a generation, but from then on it would a Truly exponential process.

One just needs to discover, or learn, and understand the 'how-to' for a 'stable environment' to come about, and to fruition.
[...]
If so, then just say and write down, what you 'see' and believe, is 'what is needed', exactly, for a 'peaceful and stable coexistence', and then 'let us' decide to 'see' if this is what 'we' agree with and accept, as well.
[...]
Now, considering that I have already partly explained how a Truly peaceful, harmonious, and stable existence can, and will, come about, while also explaining, partly, 'what is needed' for this existence, how about you start informing 'us' readers here 'what is needed', for 'a peaceful and stable coexistence'.

So, then 'we' at least have some thing to 'look at', and 'discuss' here, for now.

Okay. So, how about you start 'just listing' 'the actual things', which you perceive are needed, for 'a peaceful and stable coexistence', and then start explaining how 'those expectations of yours' can and will be 'educated' to 'the people'?

And I point back to the original formulation (here: viewtopic.php?p=698173#p698173), which lists three values as the basis for civility. Individual treatment is alone not enough. One also needs facts and honesty thrown into the mix for the behavior as a whole to advocate for stability and as such civility. More on the so called 'needs' at the end of this post.

If you have further questions about or views on how these three values interact when deciding how to act with peace and stability, I will gladly hear them and respond.

Some [societies] might be, but not all are.
[...]
Well considering the actual fact that since 'governments' have come into human society, the actual 'natural rights' of individual human beings has been decreasing and/or diminishing.

Which societies are not run by some form of goverment?

What do you consider as 'natural rights'?

'governments', which are run on 'money', and thus 'rely on money', are the best things in Life to be 'handing out' or 'granting' 'rights' to you human beings.

Unless, of course, one has been 'indoctrinated' to believe so.
[...]
And, who and/or what is the main instigator in 'taking away' 'individual rights', mostly, throughout the whole earth?

In case you are unaware, the answer is; 'governments'.
[...]
And, it is those so-called 'democratic societies', run by so-called 'democratic governments', in the days when this is being written, who have are still causing the most Wrong, and ills, in 'the world'.

Also, 'governments' are not 'run' 'by everyone', 'for everyone'. 'governments' are 'run' 'by some', mostly 'for only some'. Which, very coincidentally, 'the some' being the ones 'running' 'the government' and a select few other, 'friends, family, and/or acquaintances.
[...]
If you want to give and hand over all of 'your power' and 'control' to 'a government', 'run by a few', then by all means you are absolutely free to. But, by doing so, you will never ever live in what you call a 'stable society'.
The only True and Right way that the 'stable society', which you speak of and allude to here, will come about is never by the way you are talking about here now.

The True and Right way is 'another way'.
[...]
So what?

What is this in reference to, exactly?

Abusing is a choice also.

And, 'despair' would not even be 'a choice', if there was 'no abuse'.
[...]
So what?

Also, will you list these 'plenty of differences', which you, supposedly, see between 'current societies', when it comes to civility?

Obviously, none of the 'current societies', in the days when this is being written, besides maybe only a very small number, are actually 'civil'.

Current societies are not perfect. If they were I would not try to figure out ways to improve them. Nonetheless, it is ill-advised to claim that out of all societies democratic societies would be causing the 'most wrong'. Are you referring to a particular democratic society with these sort of claims?

It is also ill-advised to claim that one would have to leave earth to find a society where murder is punished. Claims like that can be seen as displays of irrational despair. Abuse is not required for irrational despair, only imagined abuse.

Claims about handing over all power and control to the government are also ill-advised because such power would be abused, as discussed earlier. Thus people need to demand (you read that right) that users of power use power responsibly in a civilized way.

Here is one difference between current societies (some are more civil than others, that is). In some societies the ruling elite (government) will imprison/torture/assassinate individuals for opinions which challenge the ruling elite. In other societies such opinions are allowed by the government.

So, besides the obvious contradiction here, there are many things Wrong here, on many fronts.
[...]
1. Instead of saying or writing, 'I would ask you ...', I suggest that you 'just do ask ...', as this will show me that you really are interested. Saying, 'I would ask ...', can be inferred as that 'you would', IF other things existed.

Spurious correlations about demands are not required. One does not need to like demands (especially personal demands) to understand their importance in keeping users of power in check. Everyone without power has the duty to make such demands when needed and anyone with power has the duty to take such demands of civility seriously.

If someone made such demands of me, you now know how I would respond. Will you make such demands to test the response?

What do you mean by this here?
[...]
Why does absolutely anyone need 'convincing' of this?

Absolutely every child is born just naturally doing this anyway.

Also, why are you not so-called 'looking outside of your box' and ' learning something new about 'the world' ', right now?

For example, why are you not asking clarifying questions, in regards to some of what I have been saying and/or pointing out here, and learning some new/er things?

Do you need to be 'convinced' that you need to learn new or more things here?

if yes, then how could I or absolutely any one 'convince' you that you need to 'look outside of your own personal box', and 'to learn new things', exactly?
[...]
So far, you talking about 'convincing' others of things has not been helping you here.

No-one is born with all the information in the world, thus learning is needed. Everyone is born with the innate ability for laziness, which has to be overcome to gather new information. Especially information which is outside of the box (the already known environment) requires a lot of energy to gather.

I did ask clarifying questions about your ideas at the end of the post which you also responded to. Did you start responding to the post without reading all of it first to understand the ideas as a whole?

But just saying what are core values to 'civility' does not in any way mean that you are actually doing those 'core values' "yourself".

Also, just about all already know that, 'Honesty is the best policy', and that 'Being Open', is the best and only real way 'to learn new things', but just knowing these things does not mean that any one is, nor has to be.
[...]
Is there absolutely any one who does not yet know this already?

Is there absolutely any one who needs to be 'convinced' that 'dishonesty' is Wrong or that it leads to unnecessary conflicts?
[...]
If absolutely any adult human being here thinks, believes, or says that they are honest and thus are not dishonest, then they are being 'Dishonest', not just to 'others', but also, and probably more so, to "themselves".

In other words every one of you adult human beings are 'Dishonest'.

And, once you are Truly Honest about this, anyway, irrefutable Fact, then the quicker 'the way of life', which every one wants and desires anyway, can and will come about.

'Honesty', besides, literally, being the best policy, is also, literally, 'the key' to unlocking all of the, previous, meaningful so-called 'mysteries of Life'.
[...]
Previously you talking about 'convincing' others of some things, comes across as you 'wanting' to 'take control' and 'have power' over others. Which, let us not forget, is one of the things that you say is 'needed' for a 'peaceful and stable coexistence', too.

The words 'convince others, voluntarily, to do some thing' is a contradict of terms and/or an oxymoron.
[...]
4. Also, I am not 'here' to change your behavior. To me, how you behave or misbehave is your choice alone, and solely up to you, alone.

And this is why knowledge is not enough. Individuals need to be convinced (also by themselves) to decide and act based on this knowledge. I will try to convince them to choose to be civil, others can try to convince them to choose some other way of life (innate or not) and the rest can choose to leave the convincing to others.

Forcing someone to act voluntarily would be a conflict in terms. Convincing is required exactly because individuals can voluntarily choose to do something else altogether, even if it is detrimental to peaceful coexistence in the long run.

So, if one just 'values money', which is obviously not conducive to a Truly 'stable environment and society' for every one, to you anyway, they can just 'choose' to do that instead, and 'in practice'.
[...]
How, exactly, is putting human beings in locked caged prison cells conducive to a Truly 'Peaceful and Harmonious world', for every one?
[...]
What you are saying 'to do' here, or 'to put into action' is just what is already happening and occurring here, 'now', when this is being written. Which is obviously very far removed from a Truly 'stable environment/society'.

In the long run stable actions lead to peaceful society, unstable actions lead to non-peaceful society. Legally the conundrum unfolds thusly:

- Someone acting violently is non-peaceful activity. Peace is achieved immediately by putting this person is prison. Hopefully rehabilitation makes sure this person won't re-offend after their sentence.

- Someone being dishonest or greedy is unstable activity (gives others reasons to dislike and distrust this person) which does not help in maintaining peace in the long run. In this case a legal remedy is only valid in extreme cases (e.g. lying under oath, embezzlement) and as such the societal remedy has to come from other people in the form of social pressure and penalties (e.g demands to act honestly and not co-operating fully if honesty is not achieved.)

I do not know what you are talking about and referring to here.
[...]
Obviously, you have yet not read and comprehend the actual words that I said, wrote, and used here.

Why would you even begin to presume that 'no difference between individuals are taken into consideration'?

Could this be because of 'blindness', also?

Or, do you not suffer from this 'condition' at all here?

If you help someone today (due to trust, empathy, et all.) and again tomorrow and again the day after that etc., but this other person never helps anyone else, merely takes your time and effort for selfish reasons, then it is revealed that treating everyone this way leads to abuse. So, as a rule for a single individual, it does not work in practice due to blindness to evil.

On the other hand, if you meant that all people should behave this way, then this line of reasoning has also been discussed already ("everyone just does X").

If you would like to further explain or revise the original strategy, please do so.

So, 'you', have personally, 'grouped' 'some human beings', into another 'grouped based generalization', and so from then on 'look at' and 'see' 'that group' and 'all of those', which you have personally 'placed' and/or 'put into' 'that group' as 'the same', right?
[...]
So, what is the reason why you do 'evil things'?

Or, are 'you' another one of 'those' who consider "themselves" to not be in 'that group' of 'those' 'who do evil things'?

Which, once again, brings 'me' back to, 'Why do so many adult human beings consider that it always 'them' or do Wrong or evil, and/or are bad or evil people, but never ever even just consider that what they, "themselves", are doing could be bad, Wrong, abusive, or evil?

Maybe you could enlighten to the readers here why you are one of 'these people', who do this very thing here "mr. civility"?

In this case the grouping happened only in your mind and as such assertions following it were baseless.

The statement "evil individuals exist" means, that out of all individuals in existence some act in evil ways. Thus the idea of groups is not required, only the idea of individuals and their (they also refers to the individuals) actions.

The human mind quickly creates such groups though, to make thinking easier. It is impossible to accurately keep all individuals in memory after all, even if it was possible to meet them all.

This grouping becomes uncivilized when an assumption is generalized from the grouping and the assumption is used when deciding how to act. For example:

"I saw 5 left-handed people do evil. -> Those are the only left-handed people I've ever seen. -> All left-handed people are evil! -> All evil people have to be imprisoned!"

The following statements, on the other hand, do not require grouping, generalizations or assumptions:
"Left-handed individuals exist."
"Evil individuals exist."
"Some left-handed individuals are evil."
"Some evil individuals are left-handed."

Who and/or what, exactly, is the 'us' here that you are suggesting 'teach everyone' here?
[...]
But, it is only you adults who are the, only, 'issue' here.

Children copy and follow what they 'see' and 'hear'.

If children 'see' no evil and 'hear' no even, then children will grow up doing no evil, as well.
[...]
Not just do I seem to have some kind of an idea, I actually do have 'an idea'.
[...]
It might be a 'good time', but I think 'here', in this forum, is not a 'good', or at least the 'best', 'place'.
[...]
No new born human baby distrusts nor dislikes absolutely any one, because they have had no previous reason to.

For example no new born baby is going to dislike nor distrust another human being who puts a breast or bottle full of milk in front of them. And, no young child is going to distrust nor dislike another human being after the child has, for example, accidentally thrown a ball through a window. And, when a child is asked, 'Who did this?', every child will respond with 'Me'. However, as soon as that child is yelled at, ridiculed, humiliated, punished, or any other 'negative emotion' is felt, then that child has quickly, and very quickly, learned, and thus been taught, to not like and/or also to not trust that other human being. And, the amount of dislike/distrust the child then becomes to have depends on how much ridicule, yelled at, punishment, et cetera that child had to endure through.

No child has a fear of the Truth nor of being Honest, that is; until they learned, and/or were taught, to. No child also has a dislike nor distrust of another human being, that is; until they learned, and/or were taught, to.

And, the dislike and distrust of 'others' can be learned and taught just from, over, hearing adults talking about the dislike and/or distrust that they have, for 'another/others'.
[...]
1. For the simple answer, 'Would any child not want to live nor be in peace?', and, 'Why would any child not want to live in peace?'

2. Was there ever a time in your younger childhood that you did not want to live nor be in peace?

3. But for the Truly 'why' answer here one might need to delve down into the 'genetic make up' within the 'human being'. And, the best way 'this' might be 'seen' and understood is 'within you' "yourself", an adult human being. If you found a starving child, of any age, for example, at your front door, then is there any so-called 'fiber' in your whole body' that would 'want' to not bring that child inside, not feed them, and not be peaceful with them, or, would you 'want' to bring about discord and/or discomfort to them in some way?

If your answer is, 'No', here, then 'this make up' of being a 'human being' is, well to me, anyway ingrained within 'what being human' naturally really is.

To live in peace and and in harmony with one harmony is 'ingrained within' what 'being human' 'naturally is'.

After all, each and every one of 'us' absolutely 'needs' others for our very own survival, and this goes from birth to the time of, what is Wrongly called, 'death'. Now, of course, some one might be thinking that as 'an adult' 'we' do not 'need' another for our own survival, but, there is absolutely no purpose being alive, in 'this world', if you could not share it with another. Even if one is living in 'the wild', alone, if they are not 'sharing' that existence' with 'another', even if 'the other' is a bird, squirrel, or a mouse, or even a flower/plant, for example, and watching 'it/them' grow and survive/thrive as well, then what purpose is there for living, and being alive?

Living 'with' 'others', in peace and in harmony, is an 'instinct' built within what 'being a human being' is, exactly. Well, to me any way.

If anyone knows of a young child who does not, or did not, want to live in peace, then may be they could be presented for 'observation/questioning' to find out 'why not?'
[...]
To me, there is no 'young' nor 'old', but there is certainly 'younger' and 'older'.

And, as for 'adult' and 'child' that is certainly not up to me to decide, nor for me to decide upon. To me, that is something that the whole society, is the whole earth or human being society, and not different broken fragments, and which all should agree upon, and once done then accepted, and follow. For example, at whatever age it is decided that one changes from 'a child' to 'an adult', then that is when one changed from not 'having no responsibility' to one 'having all responsibility'.
[...]
Just about every thing you adult human beings did, in the days when this was being written, was, literally, completely 'unnecessary work', (in and for your learned and obtained and gained insatiable desire and want of 'more money'), which would have been better spent doing something else, like, for example, protecting, caring for, and guiding your children on and into what is, literally, Right and good, in Life. In other words 'loving them' properly and Correctly.

However, evolving into and up to 'learning' the 'how-to' to make and create 'the life', that every one Truly wants and desires, is just 'a process', which could not and can not be hurried. All things 'take time', and 'Peace in Harmony with and for every one' is just another 'thing', which 'takes time'.
[...]
Because 'the way of life' is 'innately' 'wanted and desired' within absolutely everyone.
[...]
3. Now, if you really would like 'me' to explain what 'I' mean by the 'civility' word, then firstly, I would probably very rarely, if ever, use 'that word' in relation to what creating and causing a Truly peaceful world for every one. But, to me, the word 'civility' just means or just refers to a form of formal politeness and/or courtesy in behavior or speech, and not much else. And, to me, acting according to 'this' might improve your life, as well as the life of others, only in that there might not be as much resentment or as much dislike as there is among you and others 'currently'

Thank you for the answers . They are interesting and raise new questions.

This sounds like the old "nature" vs "nurture" debate.
Some aspects of a human are innate (genetic) some are extrinsic (learned from other humans). The ratio of these things you seem to be talking about is not clear though.

You have claimed that many things are innate from birth and known by everyone, but people don't act on them innately and that even children (who you've claimed to be devoid of evil and only learn it from adults) need to be raised up properly to know and act according to the one way of life (to avoid evil?), which is also supposed to be innate information.

1. Can you clarify which knowledge and/or actions are innate in all humans from birth and which need to be taught to children?

2. What is the difference between innate information and learned information, if even innate information needs to be activated by learning?

3. Are evil thoughts or actions innate information activated by not learning the opposite from loving adults or are they learned without any innate tendencies from evil adults?

4. Is there another natural (innate?) purpose to life other than survival or are you talking about chosen (learned) purposes?

5. Once achieved, would this new, harmonious order require everyone to live the same way and agree on everything?

6. How would this new, harmonious order cope if due to mutation (or something similar) one or more individuals became evil?

[Feel free to provide a suitable definition for evil .]
[/quote]

Which, like everything I mention and talk about here needs to be delved into further to become fully understood.
[...]
But, I could go on and on and on, delving deeper, and deeper, and deeper.

However, if no one is listening, because they are not Truly interested, then there was no need for me to.

If, however, if one is Truly interested in what I have to say and explain here, then they will come up with the 'specific things', which they Truly want to learn, and/or discover. here.

Now, if you would really like me to 'delve directly' into some 'thing' here, then I suggest that you just say what 'that' is, exactly.

Until then, since I was talking about 'needs' and 'wants' of human beings here, (among other things), then 'human beings':

Need; air, water, some nutrients, 'love'. (Please do not forget that the 'love' word is not yet agreed upon, nor 'known and understood fully' among you adult human beings in the days when this is being written, let alone known from 'my perspective' of things, yet), and shelter maybe? These are what you human beings 'need' to live and survive.

Just about everything else that are perceived as 'needs' are just 'wants'. Which are, obviously, not needed for your continual survival and existence.
[...]
So, well to this one anyway, 'power' and 'control' over 'others' is needed for a 'civil and peaceful existence'.

Now, there is absolutely no wonderment at all as to why actual Peace and Harmony for human beings took so, so, so long to come about and be achieved.
[...]
So, well again to this one anyway, once every individual new born is completely independent, from every other individual human being, then civility is no longer needed.
[...]
I am not sure how this one thinks new born individual human beings can keep alive, this way.
[...]
However, if anyone would like to discuss how a Truly 'peaceful and harmonious world' , for every one, as One, can be and will be reached and achieved, then I would love to discuss this.

I'm glad, once again, that we agree on survival forming the basis of what people need. It does not end there though.

Individuals indeed need these basic assets (air, water, nutrients, shelter) for survival, but individuals also need the means to acquire these assets. This is where everything else I've been talking about comes to play: societies, governments, right, duties, individual actions and decision. They all matter, when it comes to the needed means.

While the needed assets are mostly static, there are multiple possible choices to be made when it comes to the needed means. Power and control are part of these means in some way or another and to make sure that they are not abused, which would lead to non-peaceful activity, civility is needed.

As said before, If survival can be achieved trivially in the future (which would make all individuals independent from each other) then society and civility would no longer be needed and we could all concentrate on 'wants' only, which are arbitrary things. Trying to predict accurately what the world and humans (post-humans?) look like in the future is impossible, but in some form this is nonetheless a valid logical future state.

It seems this 'love' you've mentioned is not meant as a needed asset, but as a replacement for these needed means to achieve the needed assets.

If this 'love' can be understood, perceived or put into words you should give it a go . It is always useful to have more means to peacefully deal with the messiness of human societies.