Evolving philosophy

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8833
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:54 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:38 pm
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:17 am

HOW?

Through some sort of legislation, law, system, judgement, and/or punishment? Or, through some other source?
blood oaths, sworn under a full moon
Sublety, satire, and nuance are totally wasted here.
brother, you got that right
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Lacewing »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:38 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:54 pm Sublety, satire, and nuance are totally wasted here.
brother, you got that right
Says the caveman who avidly perpetuates ignorance but insists no one impose anything on him.
seeds
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by seeds »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:48 am ...Everyone is different and there is no, "one way," everyone must think, believe, choose, and live, which is what is wrong with every political ideology which would foist its views on everyone. I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.
To what extent do you wish to carry those assertions? In other words, do you have a problem with people being “forced” to obey traffic laws? Or laws against theft or murder?

And what do you suggest be done in the situation where one political ideology (one society) sees another political ideology (another society) consisting of ignorant males who, by mandate of their political ideology, brutally subjugate and mistreat their own females.

For example, take the case of certain branches of Islam where theocracies controlled by males, force females to wear oppressive clothing and promote the mutilation of the genitals (clitoris') of young girls, or even tacitly promote “honor killings,” or the throwing of battery acid into, again, young girls faces to keep them from advancing their education, etc., etc..

In which case, considering the lunacy of certain political ideologies, would you be against the members of a more enlightened society foisting its political ideology (by force, if necessary) on the more barbaric society in order to rescue its females?

I mean, you say that...
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:48 am ...I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.
Yet, how can that be achieved when there are political ideologies whose very rules require ignorant and barbaric males to force females to do what they (the females) do not want to do?

Aside from noble wishes, what solutions do you offer?
_______
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pm You could save half the misery of the current generation by teaching them what all young children were taught when I was young, "sticks and stones can break my bones but name can never hurt me."
What about people who didn't have your upbringing? What about children who were beaten down continually? Are they supposed to magically know otherwise?

And who is supposed to do the teaching? Who ensures that such teaching is made available?

You make it sound so simple... but is it?
What about them. If some children are neglected or abused, do we use them as the standard of how all children ought to be treated? If some children are not taught how to have strong resilient characters, should we aim at depriving all children of such training? It's in the schools that most of this subjectivist junk is taught. Children are taught that what others think of them and whether other like them or not matters, not that what they are matters and if others do not like them because they are good, the problem is the others.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pmAnyone who is intimidated by anyone else's words, opinions, ridicule, condemnation, or judgments, even lies about them, has a personal problem with their own self-assurance and integrity. Half the problems of the word would go away if people weren''t such thin-skinned wimps.
Your lack of empathy is stunning.
You call turning young people into a bunch of paranoid freaks, afraid of every harsh word and disagreement, "empathy?" I want every young person to have the ability to stand a look anyone in the eye and declare, I am a person and your opinion of me does not matter, and then go of and make something of themselves. I want them to be happy. If you have you way, they'll never be anything more than quivering little victims terrified of everything the comes along, form the latest virus to the latest environmental catastrophe.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pmThose who know who and what they are, why they believe what they believe, and are living as well as they possibly can really do not give a damn what anyone else thinks, believes, or says, about themselves, or anything else, and are certainly not threatened by anyone else's opinions about anything.
Well, again, this is rather extreme. You appear to be someone who thinks things are black and white, this or that -- whereas I think there are many colors and variations and factors (how could there NOT be?). Being of the black and white model, you can claim to know what is and should be, and you can associate yourself with the best as you see it, and show disdain for those who are not. Do you see that?
Absolutely. I'm a total radical for black and white. The ideal is always the best possible, not compromise between good and evil. How much poison mixed with your food is OK. How much lie mixed with knowledge is OK. Grey is just a mixture of black and white and a failure to discern when what is right has been corrupted.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm I don't think "force" has to be physical. People can be (and are) influenced and directed and enslaved (and attacked) to their detriment by more powerful, devious, or ignorant influences and forces all the time. They can be deceived/misled into thinking they're smart or free or safe to go down a certain path that is not actually any of those things. If we only consider physical force as a threat to guard against, we fail to recognize the impact of, and take accountability for, all of the toxic manipulation and deception and ignorance being used and imposed on people. It's real and it threatens freedom and security too.
All those things are true, but for any of them to be true, and individual has to be willing to listen to the lies that deceive him and choose to let them influence him. No one can make someone else believe or think anything against their will (which is why most of pedagogical efforts are wrong) without using force. Most people are deceived about most things, but not because they are seeking to know the truth or what is truly the right way to live, but because they want a short cut to success and happiness and think they can have by accepting some ideology that promises it without effort or cost.

Would you object to living in a society in which all the citizens were intelligent, rational, honest, competent, decent individuals who all supported themselves and enjoyed one another in every social relationship from business to love, who were never a threat to anyone else because they never wanted anything from anyone that everyone involved did not regard as to their own benefit?

Would you prefer a society in which at least some of the citizens were stupid, irrational, dishonest, incompetent, vicious individuals who lived as parasites or predators, who despised most others except other of their own kind, had no idea how to behave socially or in any relationhsip, who would willing take anything from anyone no matter what the cost to others?

I really don't want you to answer the questions, just to think about them.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

seeds wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:58 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:48 am ...Everyone is different and there is no, "one way," everyone must think, believe, choose, and live, which is what is wrong with every political ideology which would foist its views on everyone. I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.
To what extent do you wish to carry those assertions? In other words, do you have a problem with people being “forced” to obey traffic laws? Or laws against theft or murder?
It is always wrong to initiate the use of force, or the genuine threat of it. It is not problem for me, personally, because I ignore all man-made (so-called criminal justice) laws. I would never use force so laws against murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. are just insult to me. Any the forbids my doing something that harms no one else, or requires me to do something are irrelevant to me. I'm not rash and do not advertise my defiance of law, I just evade any possible consequences from the irrational state.

Law against theft, murder, assault, rape, with rare exception, do not prevent such things and are not meant to. Their whole purpose is retributive. The law only matters after a murder, assault, theft, or rape has occurred and the remecy is to do something bad to the perpetrator. It does nothing for dead, assaulted, or raped victim. There are laws against all those things and one of the most powerful enforcement agencies in the world in the US, but the crimes take place every day. I see absolutely no use in having or enforcing such laws. The neither prevent or remedy anything but do enable a great deal abuse.
seeds wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:58 pm And what do you suggest be done in the situation where one political ideology (one society) sees another political ideology (another society) consisting of ignorant males who, by mandate of their political ideology, brutally subjugate and mistreat their own females.

For example, take the case of certain branches of Islam where theocracies controlled by males, force females to wear oppressive clothing and promote the mutilation of the genitals (clitoris') of young girls, or even tacitly promote “honor killings,” or the throwing of battery acid into, again, young girls faces to keep them from advancing their education, etc., etc..

In which case, considering the lunacy of certain political ideologies, would you be against the members of a more enlightened society foisting its political ideology (by force, if necessary) on the more barbaric society in order to rescue its females?

I mean, you say that...
Done by who? All political ideologies are wrong and all oppress their citizens. Some are worse then others. Nothing will ever eliminate governments, because it's what most people want and are willing to surrender themselves to it.

I'm not, against, anything any government does, but anything any government does is always wrong. You think that destroying property and killing people is a way to deal with other human beings, I will not stand in your way, but I'll certainly not support your killing both the citizens of one's own country as well as the citizens of another as a right way to do anything.
seeds wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:58 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:48 am ...I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.
Yet, how can that be achieved when there are political ideologies whose very rules require ignorant and barbaric males to force females to do what they (the females) do not want to do?

Aside from noble wishes, what solutions do you offer?
The, "solution," is obvious. As you've pointed out there are political ideologies that are barbaric. What you do not realize is, all political ideologies are barbaric because they all believe using force is a right way for human beings to deal with one another. There will always be barbarism, cruelty, and oppression as long as there are political ideologies.

There is no political solution. Like all other problems, there are only individual problems and only individuals can solve them for themselves. There are no social or political solutions to anything.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:32 pm
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:22 am
Lacewing to RCSaunders wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 4:54 pm You may stand in the midst of all of that, and choose the enemies you feel it worthy to rage against, and encourage others to focus like you do. But truly, who decides... for everyone... what the perspective should be?
The answer to this is OBVIOUS.
So, when you think the answer is OBVIOUS, you state that as if it needs to be stated... and say nothing more.
Yes this is right; I say NOTHING more, but, just to clear up, I did NOT however state it as though it 'needs' to be stated. Unless of course so that 'world peace' can come about, then it did 'need' to be stated.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:32 pm Does that mean you think the answer ISN'T obvious when you, instead, babble on and on with all of your made-up crap?
Not at all.. Because it is so OBVIOUS nothing more 'needs' to be said.

The curios and wise ALREADY KNOW HOW to obtain this OBVIOUS answer.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:32 pm Your supposed inability to communicate better is a front for the limitations/distortions of your thinking.
Really, and what are you basing this on, EXACTLY?

Your own PRESUMPTIONS? Or, on some actual facts?

If it is the latter, then what are they, EXACTLY?

Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:32 pm What goes on in your head in regard to other people (what YOU interpret and project and conclude about them) is YOUR thinking.
OBVIOUSLY.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:32 pm Repeatedly, it's not true nor perceptive -- and it even appears delusional based on the amount of effort and false claims you put into.
But it made be ALL true or partly true, which this can only be Truly verified through clarification.

Once again, if you want to make the CLAIM, correctly and properly, that what I say appears delusional based on false claims, then you have to first, point out and say WHAT those alleged 'false claims' actually ARE, then you have to say WHY. Otherwise, what you are talking about here is just in that head ONLY.
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:32 pm It's your nonsense that doesn't matter to anyone else.
What you allege is "nonsense" is of your own making, and in that head ONLY. So, literally, what you are talking about does NOT matter to anyone "else" at all. This is because NO one "else" KNOWS, exactly, what you are referring to and talking about.


I could just as easily say; 'What you think and claim is nonsense'. But, without every clarifying what I am actually referring to and talking about, then what I am actually thinking and claiming remains solely in this head ONLY, which is EXACTLY what you are doing here now. As EVIDENCED and PROVEN, even AFTER I ask you to CLARIFY you will NOT. This is EXACTLY what I do NOT do.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 2:38 pm
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:17 am
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:26 pm

*individuals are naturally free

**the chartered natural rights minarchy (not a system or collective) would exist to preserve and further that

***:thumbsup:
HOW?

Through some sort of legislation, law, system, judgement, and/or punishment? Or, through some other source?
blood oaths, sworn under a full moon
So, I ask you for CLARITY about is it 'this one' or 'some thing else', and you reply by saying what you did here now. If you can not or will not clarify the actual question/s I ask, then please refrain from writing things that only cause LESS CLARITY and create MORE CONFUSION. If you are not going to clarify, then so be it.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm
And who is supposed to do the teaching? Who ensures that such teaching is made available?

You make it sound so simple... but is it?
Yes it is.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pm You could save half the misery of the current generation by teaching them what all young children were taught when I was young, "sticks and stones can break my bones but name can never hurt me."
What about people who didn't have your upbringing? What about children who were beaten down continually? Are they supposed to magically know otherwise?

And who is supposed to do the teaching? Who ensures that such teaching is made available?

You make it sound so simple... but is it?
What about them. If some children are neglected or abused, do we use them as the standard of how all children ought to be treated? If some children are not taught how to have strong resilient characters, should we aim at depriving all children of such training? It's in the schools that most of this subjectivist junk is taught. Children are taught that what others think of them and whether other like them or not matters, not that what they are matters and if others do not like them because they are good, the problem is the others.
But children are not necessarily taught this, to feel this. As PROVEN by very young children who have yet to attend schools.

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pmAnyone who is intimidated by anyone else's words, opinions, ridicule, condemnation, or judgments, even lies about them, has a personal problem with their own self-assurance and integrity. Half the problems of the word would go away if people weren''t such thin-skinned wimps.
Your lack of empathy is stunning.
You call turning young people into a bunch of paranoid freaks, afraid of every harsh word and disagreement, "empathy?" I want every young person to have the ability to stand a look anyone in the eye and declare, I am a person and your opinion of me does not matter, and then go of and make something of themselves.
Well you will have to change EVERY adult person FIRST to obtain this. And, your claim that "ANY 'one' who is intimated by anyone else's words", et cetera has a personal problem SHOWS and REVEALS your problems. How can you NOT YET SEE what some children have to endure and live with?

Not being intimated by "another's" words, et cetera is a thing EVERY adult one is expected to be able to do. But expecting ALL children to be able to do this allows people to treat children in anyway that they want.

And, as "lacewing" so rightly pointed out to you, your lack of empathy is stunning.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm I want them to be happy.
You want them to be happy, no matter how they are treated, correct?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm
If you have you way, they'll never be anything more than quivering little victims terrified of everything the comes along, form the latest virus to the latest environmental catastrophe.
This is a huge jump to a conclusion, which was NOT being expressed, from my perspective anyway.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pmThose who know who and what they are, why they believe what they believe, and are living as well as they possibly can really do not give a damn what anyone else thinks, believes, or says, about themselves, or anything else, and are certainly not threatened by anyone else's opinions about anything.
Well, again, this is rather extreme. You appear to be someone who thinks things are black and white, this or that -- whereas I think there are many colors and variations and factors (how could there NOT be?). Being of the black and white model, you can claim to know what is and should be, and you can associate yourself with the best as you see it, and show disdain for those who are not. Do you see that?
Absolutely. I'm a total radical for black and white. The ideal is always the best possible, not compromise between good and evil. How much poison mixed with your food is OK. How much lie mixed with knowledge is OK. Grey is just a mixture of black and white and a failure to discern when what is right has been corrupted.
But you are YET to show that you KNOW what is actually true and right, and therefore your own views are just a mix of, so called, "black" and "white", good and evil, thinking as well. Which can be CLEARLY RECOGNIZED ad SEEN.

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm I don't think "force" has to be physical. People can be (and are) influenced and directed and enslaved (and attacked) to their detriment by more powerful, devious, or ignorant influences and forces all the time. They can be deceived/misled into thinking they're smart or free or safe to go down a certain path that is not actually any of those things. If we only consider physical force as a threat to guard against, we fail to recognize the impact of, and take accountability for, all of the toxic manipulation and deception and ignorance being used and imposed on people. It's real and it threatens freedom and security too.
All those things are true, but for any of them to be true, and individual has to be willing to listen to the lies that deceive him and choose to let them influence him. No one can make someone else believe or think anything against their will (which is why most of pedagogical efforts are wrong) without using force.
LOL if you think or believe that 'force' is ever going to work, then you will be STUCK where human beings have been in the last few thousand or so years. And, we can ALL see where this way of thinking is leading the human race to, correct?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm Most people are deceived about most things, but not because they are seeking to know the truth or what is truly the right way to live, but because they want a short cut to success and happiness and think they can have by accepting some ideology that promises it without effort or cost.

Would you object to living in a society in which all the citizens were intelligent, rational, honest, competent, decent individuals who all supported themselves and enjoyed one another in every social relationship from business to love, who were never a threat to anyone else because they never wanted anything from anyone that everyone involved did not regard as to their own benefit?
No. But now please explain EXACTLY HOW this society can and will come about.

If you do not, then WHY NOT?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm Would you prefer a society in which at least some of the citizens were stupid, irrational, dishonest, incompetent, vicious individuals who lived as parasites or predators, who despised most others except other of their own kind, had no idea how to behave socially or in any relationhsip, who would willing take anything from anyone no matter what the cost to others?

I really don't want you to answer the questions, just to think about them.
Why do you NOT want "others" to answer your clarifying questions? Do you really not want to KNOW what "others" REALLY think?

Also, if you really are a total radical for black and white, then just INFORM US of what you KNOW in HOW to create the IDEAL society. Why are you HOLDING BACK?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm
seeds wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:58 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:48 am ...Everyone is different and there is no, "one way," everyone must think, believe, choose, and live, which is what is wrong with every political ideology which would foist its views on everyone. I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.
To what extent do you wish to carry those assertions? In other words, do you have a problem with people being “forced” to obey traffic laws? Or laws against theft or murder?
It is always wrong to initiate the use of force, or the genuine threat of it. It is not problem for me, personally, because I ignore all man-made (so-called criminal justice) laws.
Do you really expect us to BELIEVE this?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm I would never use force so laws against murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. are just insult to me. Any the forbids my doing something that harms no one else, or requires me to do something are irrelevant to me. I'm not rash and do not advertise my defiance of law, I just evade any possible consequences from the irrational state.
But is this, really, ABSOLUTELY True?

Also, considering the amount of harm that you are doing to "others" now, and you will NOT stop doing them because of laws, then what WILL actually STOP you, from harming and damaging "others"?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm Law against theft, murder, assault, rape, with rare exception, do not prevent such things and are not meant to. Their whole purpose is retributive. The law only matters after a murder, assault, theft, or rape has occurred and the remecy is to do something bad to the perpetrator. It does nothing for dead, assaulted, or raped victim. There are laws against all those things and one of the most powerful enforcement agencies in the world in the US, but the crimes take place every day. I see absolutely no use in having or enforcing such laws. The neither prevent or remedy anything but do enable a great deal abuse.
Agreed. And the remedy/solution is REALLY quite very SIMPLE and EASY indeed.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:48 am
seeds wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:58 pm And what do you suggest be done in the situation where one political ideology (one society) sees another political ideology (another society) consisting of ignorant males who, by mandate of their political ideology, brutally subjugate and mistreat their own females.

For example, take the case of certain branches of Islam where theocracies controlled by males, force females to wear oppressive clothing and promote the mutilation of the genitals (clitoris') of young girls, or even tacitly promote “honor killings,” or the throwing of battery acid into, again, young girls faces to keep them from advancing their education, etc., etc..

In which case, considering the lunacy of certain political ideologies, would you be against the members of a more enlightened society foisting its political ideology (by force, if necessary) on the more barbaric society in order to rescue its females?

I mean, you say that...
Done by who? All political ideologies are wrong and all oppress their citizens. Some are worse then others. Nothing will ever eliminate governments, because it's what most people want and are willing to surrender themselves to it.

I'm not, against, anything any government does, but anything any government does is always wrong. You think that destroying property and killing people is a way to deal with other human beings, I will not stand in your way, but I'll certainly not support your killing both the citizens of one's own country as well as the citizens of another as a right way to do anything.
seeds wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:58 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 12:48 am ...I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.
Yet, how can that be achieved when there are political ideologies whose very rules require ignorant and barbaric males to force females to do what they (the females) do not want to do?

Aside from noble wishes, what solutions do you offer?
The, "solution," is obvious. As you've pointed out there are political ideologies that are barbaric. What you do not realize is, all political ideologies are barbaric because they all believe using force is a right way for human beings to deal with one another. There will always be barbarism, cruelty, and oppression as long as there are political ideologies.

There is no political solution. Like all other problems, there are only individual problems and only individuals can solve them for themselves. There are no social or political solutions to anything.
BUT, the social, (or "political") SOLUTION is the one in which EVERY agrees with and abides by VOLUNTARY. This is part of THEE SOLUTION, which WILL CREATE a Truly peaceful world for EVERY one. As you have alluded to here this is very much an individual 'problem' AND 'solution'. Which is, by the way, a VERY SIMPLE and EASY 'problem' to SOLVE.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8833
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

ace

Post by henry quirk »

If you can not or will not clarify the actual question/s I ask, then please refrain from writing things that only cause LESS CLARITY and create MORE CONFUSION.

what's not clear about blood oaths, sworn under a full moon?

seems clear to me

what about the rest of you mooks: does it seems clear to all of you?

mebbe, ace, the stunningly stupid simplicity of blood oaths, sworn under a full moon is beneath you

where I have only dirt between my toes, mebbe you have only wind beneath your wings

cue Bette Midler...
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: ace

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am where I have only dirt between my toes, mebbe you have only wind beneath your wings

cue Bette Midler...
Err, Sheena Easton. I only know because my, "troubled teen," stepdaughter, who began by hating me, had Eston's version of "You Are the Wind Beneath My Wings," played for our dance when she got married, because I saw the character in her and helped her turn her life around. She and her husband are now the closest of all our relatives.

[I know Bette Midler wrote the song and first sang it in the movie, "Beaches." Easton's version just happens to be the one I know.]
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm You call turning young people into a bunch of paranoid freaks, afraid of every harsh word and disagreement, "empathy?" I want every young person to have the ability to stand a look anyone in the eye and declare, I am a person and your opinion of me does not matter, and then go of and make something of themselves.
Well you will have to change EVERY adult person FIRST to obtain this. ...
I won't be changing anyone. No one is on this earth to make other people the kind of people they ought to be. It is people who believe it is up to them to change others that are the cause of problems in human relations. One's only responsibility is to live their own life as well as they can and to keep your nose out of your neighbor's life and business.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm And, as "lacewing" so rightly pointed out to you, your lack of empathy is stunning.
Your sentiment are worth absolutely nothing, to yourself or anyone else. If you really want to of value to others you must learn how and then make the effort to actually produce a product or perform a service that will actually benefit people. I was once asked if I would prefer my nurse to have empathy for me. I said, "no!" I want her to be competent. She can be dripping with empathy but if she gets my IV wrong I'll be dead.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm I want them to be happy.
You want them to be happy, no matter how they are treated, correct?
Yes, so long as no one actually threatens or uses physical force, one's own happiness does depend on what anyone else says or does if their thinking is right. If things other people think, say, or do affect your happiness I'm sorry for you. It doesn't have to be that way.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm But you are YET to show that you KNOW what is actually true and right, and therefore your own views are just a mix of, so called, "black" and "white", good and evil, thinking as well. Which can be CLEARLY RECOGNIZED ad SEEN.
"Show," to whom?
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm Would you object to living in a society in which all the citizens were intelligent, rational, honest, competent, decent individuals who all supported themselves and enjoyed one another in every social relationship from business to love, who were never a threat to anyone else because they never wanted anything from anyone that everyone involved did not regard as to their own benefit?
No. But now please explain EXACTLY HOW this society can and will come about.[/quote]
It won't ever, "come about," because it is the individuals that make up a society that determine the kind it is. No ideology or political system can produce that (or any other kind of society) because you cannot change people (and it is wrong to try to). The point of the question is to illustrate what a society worth living in must be like. Since no society is or can like that, no society is worth saving.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm Would you prefer a society in which at least some of the citizens were stupid, irrational, dishonest, incompetent, vicious individuals who lived as parasites or predators, who despised most others except other of their own kind, had no idea how to behave socially or in any relationhsip, who would willing take anything from anyone no matter what the cost to others?

I really don't want you to answer the questions, just to think about them.
Why do you NOT want "others" to answer your clarifying questions? Do you really not want to KNOW what "others" REALLY think?
Because, unlike you, I am only interested in ideas, not other personalities. What and how others think and choose is really none of my business. I'm always ready to learn what others ideas are, if freely offered and I enjoy whatever personal aspects of others life the volunteer to share, but it is wrong for me to demand that others explain themselves to me.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm Also, if you really are a total radical for black and white, then just INFORM US of what you KNOW in HOW to create the IDEAL society. Why are you HOLDING BACK?
It is also wrong for you to demand that I explain myself to you, but I cannot be offended. It is not possible to produce an ideal society and every attempt to do so must end in oppression because it would require using force to change people. However, all those things that decent individuals who only want to be free to live their lives as they choose and to make of themselves the best human beings they can be, can have that freedom, but they must make themselves free. Government and freedom are contradictions.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8833
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: ace

Post by henry quirk »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:35 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am where I have only dirt between my toes, mebbe you have only wind beneath your wings

cue Bette Midler...
Err, Sheena Easton. I only know because my, "troubled teen," stepdaughter, who began by hating me, had Eston's version of "You Are the Wind Beneath My Wings," played for our dance when she got married, because I saw the character in her and helped her turn her life around. She and her husband are now the closest of all our relatives.

[I know Bette Midler wrote the song and first sang it in the movie, "Beaches." Easton's version just happens to be the one I know.]
I hate that song...so...damn...much
Belinda
Posts: 4027
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm You call turning young people into a bunch of paranoid freaks, afraid of every harsh word and disagreement, "empathy?" I want every young person to have the ability to stand a look anyone in the eye and declare, I am a person and your opinion of me does not matter, and then go of and make something of themselves.
Well you will have to change EVERY adult person FIRST to obtain this. ...
I won't be changing anyone. No one is on this earth to make other people the kind of people they ought to be. It is people who believe it is up to them to change others that are the cause of problems in human relations. One's only responsibility is to live their own life as well as they can and to keep your nose out of your neighbor's life and business.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm And, as "lacewing" so rightly pointed out to you, your lack of empathy is stunning.
Your sentiment are worth absolutely nothing, to yourself or anyone else. If you really want to of value to others you must learn how and then make the effort to actually produce a product or perform a service that will actually benefit people. I was once asked if I would prefer my nurse to have empathy for me. I said, "no!" I want her to be competent. She can be dripping with empathy but if she gets my IV wrong I'll be dead.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm I want them to be happy.
You want them to be happy, no matter how they are treated, correct?
Yes, so long as no one actually threatens or uses physical force, one's own happiness does depend on what anyone else says or does if their thinking is right. If things other people think, say, or do affect your happiness I'm sorry for you. It doesn't have to be that way.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm But you are YET to show that you KNOW what is actually true and right, and therefore your own views are just a mix of, so called, "black" and "white", good and evil, thinking as well. Which can be CLEARLY RECOGNIZED ad SEEN.
"Show," to whom?
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm Would you object to living in a society in which all the citizens were intelligent, rational, honest, competent, decent individuals who all supported themselves and enjoyed one another in every social relationship from business to love, who were never a threat to anyone else because they never wanted anything from anyone that everyone involved did not regard as to their own benefit?
No. But now please explain EXACTLY HOW this society can and will come about.
It won't ever, "come about," because it is the individuals that make up a society that determine the kind it is. No ideology or political system can produce that (or any other kind of society) because you cannot change people (and it is wrong to try to). The point of the question is to illustrate what a society worth living in must be like. Since no society is or can like that, no society is worth saving.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm Would you prefer a society in which at least some of the citizens were stupid, irrational, dishonest, incompetent, vicious individuals who lived as parasites or predators, who despised most others except other of their own kind, had no idea how to behave socially or in any relationhsip, who would willing take anything from anyone no matter what the cost to others?

I really don't want you to answer the questions, just to think about them.
Why do you NOT want "others" to answer your clarifying questions? Do you really not want to KNOW what "others" REALLY think?
Because, unlike you, I am only interested in ideas, not other personalities. What and how others think and choose is really none of my business. I'm always ready to learn what others ideas are, if freely offered and I enjoy whatever personal aspects of others life the volunteer to share, but it is wrong for me to demand that others explain themselves to me.
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm Also, if you really are a total radical for black and white, then just INFORM US of what you KNOW in HOW to create the IDEAL society. Why are you HOLDING BACK?
It is also wrong for you to demand that I explain myself to you, but I cannot be offended. It is not possible to produce an ideal society and every attempt to do so must end in oppression because it would require using force to change people. However, all those things that decent individuals who only want to be free to live their lives as they choose and to make of themselves the best human beings they can be, can have that freedom, but they must make themselves free. Government and freedom are contradictions.
[/quote]



Belinda replies:------------ ------------------------- --------------------
An individual who is high enough in the pecking order can often
have the ability to stand a look anyone in the eye and declare, I am a person and your opinion of me does not matter, and then go of and make something of themselves.
. It would be good if everyone could be socially so strong. But this is impossible as there is always a ruling class members of which are good at
the ability to stand a look anyone in the eye and declare, I am a person and your opinion of me does not matter, and then go of and make something of themselves
.

Members of the social elite who are like
stand a look anyone in the eye and declare, I am a person and your opinion of me does not matter, and then go of and make something of themselves.
are a demographic minority, always at all time and all parts of the world.

Unless RCSaunders is themself a member of this elite group e.g.affluent white male he/she is shooting themself in the foot by declaring the policy of
have the ability to stand a look anyone in the eye and declare, I am a person and your opinion of me does not matter, and then go of and make something of themselves.
can function without political machinery for universally equal opportunities .
Post Reply