Evolving philosophy

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ace

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am 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?
Nothing.

WHY?

Did you ASSUME that some thing was NOT clear, to me, about what you wrote here?
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am seems clear to me
Okay.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am what about the rest of you mooks: does it seems clear to all of you?
What you wrote seems perfectly clear. But what does NOT seem clear at all is HOW what you wrote could preserve and further individuals natural freedom.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am mebbe, ace, the stunningly stupid simplicity of blood oaths, sworn under a full moon is beneath you
And maybe the actual SIMPLICITY of my questions was above, below, or beyond you. You OBVIOUSLY MISSED answering them.
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...
Also, my polite request was also OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MISSED as well.
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 2:47 am
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
I never cared for it much myself, but I can tolerate it if I have to. I cannot tolerate rap or hip hop. It's truly painful and mind-numbing and does more damage than drugs.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Age »

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.
I KNOW.

I was just pointing out what you would HAVE TO DO in order to get what you want here.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am It is people who believe it is up to them to change others that are the cause of problems in human relations.
Okay, if you say so, but OBVIOUSLY this has absolutely NOTHING to do with me.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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.
WHY do you claim that this is one's ONLY responsibility?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am
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 this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this MUST BE true, correct?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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.
Okay.

Is this what you do?

If yes, then what did you learn, and what do you do?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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.
This sentiment might be worth absolutely nothing, to anyone, other than you.
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 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.
So, how do you suggest children can be born with this, so called, "right" thinking?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am If things other people think, say, or do affect your happiness I'm sorry for you. It doesn't have to be that way.
Once again your lack of empathy and complete lack of understanding of children is stunning.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am
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?
To they, other than 'you'.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am
Age wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 11:39 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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,"
If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then you will do whatever to make it not 'come about'. You are therefore just another one of the cause of this, so far when this is being written, not yet 'coming about'.

If you do NOT YET KNOW what is NEEDED for this to 'come about', then this SHOWS you still have somewhat more to learn about how you can be of actual value to "others", BEFORE you could be of any actual real benefit to them.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am because it is the individuals that make up a society that determine the kind it is.
This is the VERY REASON WHY 'it' will 'come about'.

The name of this society speaks for itself in how individuals, themselves, will rule over and run this society.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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).
You REALLY do have a LOT more to learn in regards to HOW you can be of value to "others"
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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.
OBVIOUSLY NO current nor previous society, to the days of when this is being written, is worth saving.

Thee society, which is REALLY worth living in and which is soon to come, has YET to 'come about'.
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 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.
So, WHY do you NOT want "others" to answer your clarifying questions? Did you forget the answers would be 'ideas'?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am What and how others think and choose is really none of my business.
Where do you think or believe ideas, and answers, come from if not from what "others" think?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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.
So, WHY were you demanding "others" explain themselves to you, AND THEN you say that you do not really want them to answer your demanding questions?

Also, you have ALREADY SHOWN and PROVEN that you are NOT ready to learn what "others" ideas are, if those ideas oppose what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true or correct.

HOW could you be 'ready' to learn some thing, which you BELIEVE is impossible, or could NOT come about?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am
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.
So, WHY do you say it is wrong?

If you do NOT want to inform "others" of just HOW an ideal society could come about, then this implies a sense or degree of evil intent.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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.


LOL well that is ONE ASSUMPTION.

WHY do you BELIEVE that 'force' would be required to change people?

Have you NOT observed ANY thing else regarding the changing of people?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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.
SO, HOW does one make themselves free?

Or, are you going to HOLD BACK this information?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am Government and freedom are contradictions.
No disputing this here. But, this is NOT ALL there is.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8833
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: ace

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:06 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am 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?
Nothing.

WHY?

Did you ASSUME that some thing was NOT clear, to me, about what you wrote here?
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am seems clear to me
Okay.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am what about the rest of you mooks: does it seems clear to all of you?
What you wrote seems perfectly clear. But what does NOT seem clear at all is HOW what you wrote could preserve and further individuals natural freedom.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am mebbe, ace, the stunningly stupid simplicity of blood oaths, sworn under a full moon is beneath you
And maybe the actual SIMPLICITY of my questions was above, below, or beyond you. You OBVIOUSLY MISSED answering them.
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...
Also, my polite request was also OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MISSED as well.
not missed: dismissed
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 11:39 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:47 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:35 am
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
I never cared for it much myself, but I can tolerate it if I have to. I cannot tolerate rap or hip hop. It's truly painful and mind-numbing and does more damage than drugs.
:thumbsup:
seeds
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:58 pm 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?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm 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'm not rash and do not advertise my defiance of law,...
Well, seeing how you just advertised it on an international forum, it would seem as though that ship has set sail.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm I just evade any possible consequences from the irrational state.
Don’t we all? :D
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.
I agree with you that they may not prevent the initial crime. However, they are at least designed (ideally) to try to prevent the same person from repeating the crime on someone else.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm Their whole purpose is retributive.
No, their purpose is to help maintain some semblance of order for large enclaves of good-minded and bad-minded humans.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm 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.
That’s true. However, I suggest that it’s more for the creation of an orderly form of justice for the sake of the victim’s relatives and loved ones (as opposed to a dead victim’s relatives doling out the justice themselves).
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm 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.
No, the US (with its wide-scale perpetration of murders and thefts throughout the world via its imperialistic endeavors), is one of the most insidious breakers of laws on the planet. And it is “insidious” because it does its dirty deeds (done dirt cheap) under the self-deluded guise of being a so-called “good guy.”
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm I see absolutely no use in having or enforcing such laws. The neither prevent or remedy anything but do enable a great deal abuse.
Again, the laws (many of which, as you point out, tend to be abusive or even ineffectual) are at least meant (again, ideally) to try to prevent the offenders (especially those who use violence) from repeating their crimes on others.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm I'm not, against, anything any government does, but anything any government does is always wrong.
What a strange argument, for it implies that you are not against a government doing something wrong. :?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm 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.
Who said killing anyone is the right way to do something? How about you stop painting everyone with your wide brush of erroneous assumptions of what other people think.

However, I would like to know what you would do if you were walking down the street and saw some god-awful brute sodomizing a 3 year old child (perhaps your own little girl) while holding a knife to her throat with a promise to cut her head off after he finishes pleasing himself?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm ...I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.
seeds wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:58 pm Aside from noble wishes, what solutions do you offer?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm 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.
So then, your “obvious solution” to the problem comes in the form of a crotchety old fart shaking his fist at the wind in a futile rant about the need to eliminate all political ideologies in the hope that all humans on earth...

(many of which actually enjoy committing barbarism, cruelty, and oppression on others)

...would then be able to “see the light.”

And in some kind of universally shared transformation of human psychology, everyone on the planet would undergo a self-correcting change of heart and mind wherein greedy, power hungry despots, narcissists, dictators, thieves, and murderers would no longer feel the urge to hurt or take advantage of others, or have a need to milk the world for all they can get for themselves (like a certain president, for example)...

...(all taking place with John Lennon's song “Imagine” playing in the background).

Got it.
_______
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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.
WHY do you claim that this is one's ONLY responsibility?
Because responsibility only pertains to choice. One is only responsible for what they can an do choose to do. Every individual has their own mind and must make their own choices and is responsible only for the choices they make.
Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am If you really want to be 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.
Okay.

Is this what you do?

If yes, then what did you learn, and what do you do?
You just can't help it, can you. You cannot talk about anything without turning into some kind of personal thing. Quite frankly what I have done and produced are none of your business and totally irrelevant to the issue. I have lived my entire life by that principle and do not have to explain any of that to you.
Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:14 pm SO, HOW does one make themselves free?

Or, are you going to HOLD BACK this information?
I'm sorry. I get paid for that kind of information and I do not think you really want to know. If you are willing to pay for a course in setting yourself free, I'll consider it.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by RCSaunders »

seeds wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:24 pm Again, the laws (many of which, as you point out, tend to be abusive or even ineffectual) are at least meant (again, ideally) to try to prevent ...
Some of them, maybe, but most are meant to make the citizens obey government directions like only providing or using government approved services and products (form hair salons to banks to medicine) and ensuring the government is getting their protection money (taxes). Some laws may be meant to prevent some crime, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
seeds wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:24 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm I'm not, against, anything any government does, but anything any government does is always wrong.
What a strange argument, for it implies that you are not against a government doing something wrong. :?
It was intended. I regard all government and all social and political ideologies as both dangerous and malevolent, but they are not my business to personally try to prevent or correct. The only reason they exist is because it is what most people want. The only way they could be fought would be to change everyone else. My way of dealing with all evil is the same. I identify it, determine what I must do to protect my self from it and take the action necessary. It does not matter if the threat is other human beings, other animals, or natural phenomena, my life and its welfare is my responsibility, not anyone else's. It would simply be foolish to suppose I should or could fix all the possible problems of the world, especially all human problems, since they are the consequence of the choices and actions of the individuals who have those problems. If I have problem, I must solve them or eat them. If you have problems you must solve them.
seeds wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:24 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm 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.
Who said killing anyone is the right way to do something? How about you stop painting everyone with your wide brush of erroneous assumptions of what other people think.
You wrote:
... 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?
Since the only way one state (society) can foist by force its ideology on another state is war, I was just answer your question. War is never a right way to do anything. I wasn't accusing you of anything, just using plain language for your euphemistic description.
seeds wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:24 pm However, I would like to know what you would do if you were walking down the street and saw some god-awful brute sodomizing a 3 year old child (perhaps your own little girl) while holding a knife to her throat with a promise to cut her head off after he finishes pleasing himself?
No you wouldn't. Would you really be willing to base your social principles on what I'd do? Then why ask what I would do?

If you are going use a hypothetical case, provide all the details. What possible reason would I be in a place where I might see such a thing? Am I the only one there? Whose child is the 3 year old, and how did the brute get him? Is there a way to prevent the crime without anyone using force? What are my abilities? If I happen to be tied up (the brute overpowered me first) there is nothing I can do. If I'm a cripple there is nothing I can do. When attempting think about how human beings should generally relate to one another, why would you pick the most unlikely and hideous situation you could think of?

Now let me tell you a true story. There was a young man in Afghanistan who actually had an experience much like you described. To end the assault of a young boy who refused to stop, he shot the brute. That young man is now in USP Leavenworth, because American soldiers were commanded to look the other way and ignore Muslim atrocities. That's how forcing one's ideology on another country works out.
seeds wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:24 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm ...I only want every individual to be able to live their own life without anyone else forcing them to do or not do anything.
Aside from noble wishes, what solutions do you offer?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:39 pm 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.
So then, your “obvious solution” to the problem comes in the form of a crotchety old fart shaking his fist at the wind in a futile rant about the need to eliminate all political ideologies in the hope that all humans on earth...
Go back and read what I wrote: There is no political solution. There is no way to change the world, or society, or your community, or even your next door neighbor. If you have a problem you and only you are either the cause or solution to your problem.

Remember I have no ideology to promote, no political agenda, and have no interest in changing the world or how anyone else chooses to live their life. Most of human beings will always be ignorant and superstitious (because it's easier to just accept what one is taught then to do the hard work of studying and actually learning something, and most will swallow any political promise of a safe and prosperous life provided by some government, and suffer the consequences. It doesn't have to be that way, but it can only change if individuals choose to use the potential they are born with to learn and think, to take responsibility for their own lives, and work to achieve and be all they can be. That's very hard, demanding, and requires more than most people are willing to spend, but the possibility of a life of achievement is avaiable to anyone willing to make the effort, the only kind of life that can truly satisfy one's human psychological needs and a life worth living.

I don't want to foist anything on anyone, but I know what human potential is, and it does sadden me some to see most of humanity squander their lives in the pursuit of that which can never satisfy them.

Unfortunately, H.L. Mencken was right:
I have little belief in human progress. The human race is incurably idiotic. It will never be happy.
So long as there are men in the world, 99 percent of them will be idiots, and so long as 99 percent of them are idiots they will thirst for absurd ideologies, and so long as they thirst for absurd ideologies, it will remain a weapon over them. I see no way out. If you blow up one superstition, they will embrace another. [Paraphrased]
The costliest of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
But any individual who chooses to can do an be anything he's willing to make the effort to do and be.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Lacewing »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm
Lacewing wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:35 pm 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?"
How did you come up with that? Must your responses/conclusions be so extreme and distorted?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pm 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.
Well sure! But there's more going on than we can see from any single human perspective.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:54 pmIf 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.
Again with the absurd extremism? It's so ridiculously dishonest! You know that, right?
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pmI'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.
Wow. Thanks for expressing so well how distorted and limited your view is. There is no middle ground, for you, correct? It's either perfect and the absolute best (as you see it), or it's poisonous and bad. What the fuck are you doing on planet Earth with such a high and mighty opinion about how everything must be? Roll in the dirt a little... let your hair down... loosen up man. LOVE what is. Maybe even eventually see the perfection in what is!
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pmNo one can make someone else believe or think anything against their will
True! But don't we have a responsibility in not bombarding others with a bunch of crap? If we're honorable, that is.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pmMost 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.
That may be ONE reason some people are deceived. Some people are deceived simply because they're trusting.
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 4:26 pmWould 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?
Of course not. I would love for everyone to be ecstatically happy and fulfilled.

But I'm not in charge of the big picture... I just do my best and have respect for the vast potential and connectivity I've noticed. And I feel love more immediately, rather than hate. Sometimes, things that don't look perfect, actually are. So one human's view/assessment of black and white seems very contrived to serve themselves.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Lacewing »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 9:24 pm I know what human potential is, and it does sadden me some to see most of humanity squander their lives in the pursuit of that which can never satisfy them.
According to who?

Can you imagine that what they're doing is exactly the dance they came into this life to experience/do -- however herky-jerky it might appear -- and might THAT be a form of artwork? THEIR artwork. Not everyone appreciates/sees artwork in everything... but what if you did?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ace

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:20 pm
Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:06 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am 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?
Nothing.

WHY?

Did you ASSUME that some thing was NOT clear, to me, about what you wrote here?
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am seems clear to me
Okay.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am what about the rest of you mooks: does it seems clear to all of you?
What you wrote seems perfectly clear. But what does NOT seem clear at all is HOW what you wrote could preserve and further individuals natural freedom.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:11 am mebbe, ace, the stunningly stupid simplicity of blood oaths, sworn under a full moon is beneath you
And maybe the actual SIMPLICITY of my questions was above, below, or beyond you. You OBVIOUSLY MISSED answering them.
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...
Also, my polite request was also OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MISSED as well.
not missed: dismissed
Well there is the answer to your question.

What was not clear is that you just DISMISS my clarifying questions and my polite requests. But now that that is cleared up, then there is NO use asking you you for clarity. You will just DISMISS doing it, for reasons you will NOT share.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Evolving philosophy

Post by Age »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:34 pm
Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am 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.
WHY do you claim that this is one's ONLY responsibility?
Because responsibility only pertains to choice.
But to be of real value and benefit to "others", as you talk about, then one would have to take note of their neighbors' lives and business, correct?

How could one be of real value and benefit to "another" if one kept out of their neighbor's life and business completely?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:34 pm One is only responsible for what they can an do choose to do.
But people can accept and take responsibility for their past choices, correct?

If yes, then they can be responsible for their past choices, AS WELL.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:34 pm Every individual has their own mind
This would depend on what the 'Mind' actually IS.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:34 pm and must make their own choices and is responsible only for the choices they make.
At what age do you propose this happens at?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:34 pm
Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:14 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:44 am If you really want to be 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.
Okay.

Is this what you do?

If yes, then what did you learn, and what do you do?
You just can't help it, can you.
What does the 'it' here refer to, EXACTLY?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:34 pm You cannot talk about anything without turning into some kind of personal thing.
I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHY you persist going down this line of thinking EVERY TIME I just ask you to CLARIFY what you say in regards to what you have learned and do do.

It is like you are 'trying' things to deflect away from just answering the clarifying question/s.

You are TELLING US that if we want to be of value to "others", then we MUST learn how, and then make the effort to actually produce a product or perform a service that will actually benefit people.

But if you can NOT or will NOT clarify and/or explain what 'it' is exactly, which you say we MUST learn, then we OBVIOUSLY will NOT be able to do what you say we MUST then make.

OBVIOUSLY, what you say we MUST learn, and then do, would the EXACT SAME thing for EVERY one. So, either you have learned 'this' (whatever that is) and are doing it "your" 'self', or you have NOT. Now, if you have, then WHY NOT share 'it' with us?

But if you have NOT YET learned 'it', and/or are NOT YET doing 'this', then HOW do you KNOW that we MUST learn 'this' AND do 'this'?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:34 pm Quite frankly what I have done and produced are none of your business and totally irrelevant to the issue.
LOL So, you allege and claim WE MUST do the things you do, BUT then TELL US what you do IS IRRELEVANT.

Are you joking here?
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:34 pm I have lived my entire life by that principle and do not have to explain any of that to you.
You are CORRECT; You do NOT have to explain 'that', NOR explain absolutely ANY thing else to us. But, it appears to be extremely contradictory and/or hypocritical to TELL US what we MUST learn and do, but then CLAIM that you do NOT have to explain ANY of what we MUST learn and do to us.

Some would be concluding that you actually do NOT know what you are going on about here.

If you have SUPPOSEDLY lived your ENTIRE life by 'that' principle, which by the way is a complete IMPOSSIBILITY, and then TELL US that we MUST learn and do this as well, then INFORM US that you will NOT and do NOT have to explain ANY of 'that' principle to us some are CLEARLY SEEING is you NOT following and doing your OWN 'principle' at all. In fact, you are SHOWING and REVEALING that you have NOT learned 'that' principle at all.
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:34 pm
Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 12:14 pm SO, HOW does one make themselves free?

Or, are you going to HOLD BACK this information?
I'm sorry. I get paid for that kind of information and I do not think you really want to know. If you are willing to pay for a course in setting yourself free, I'll consider it.
LOL So, then you are CONSTRAINT by YOUR 'love-of-money', correct?

What has actually come-to-light here now, well from my perspective anyway, is you have come to a philosophy forum to TELL "others" that they MUST live a certain way, but then when just asked for clarity about what this way is and how we can learn 'it', then you INFORM US that we have to PAY for a course on 'it'.

I wonder if this is ALLOWED in such a forum as this one is.

By the way being Truly FREE is NEVER being a captive to a love for more money.

If people pay you money, for what is essentially FREE information, for a course in setting themselves free, then you AND them are BEING HELD 'more' captive than you ALREADY WERE.

By the way NEVER be sorry for what you choose to do. If you really are, then you are OBVIOUSLY NOT living a life well lived and NOT being of ANY real value NOR benefit to "others".

If you feel the need to apologize, then there is a Knowing that you are doing some thing WRONG, and thus abusive to others.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8833
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: ace

Post by henry quirk »

Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:21 pm
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:20 pm
Age wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:06 am

Nothing.

WHY?

Did you ASSUME that some thing was NOT clear, to me, about what you wrote here?



Okay.



What you wrote seems perfectly clear. But what does NOT seem clear at all is HOW what you wrote could preserve and further individuals natural freedom.



And maybe the actual SIMPLICITY of my questions was above, below, or beyond you. You OBVIOUSLY MISSED answering them.



Also, my polite request was also OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY MISSED as well.
not missed: dismissed
Well there is the answer to your question.

What was not clear is that you just DISMISS my clarifying questions and my polite requests. But now that that is cleared up, then there is NO use asking you you for clarity. You will just DISMISS doing it, for reasons you will NOT share.
:thumbsup:
Belinda
Posts: 4024
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: ace

Post by Belinda »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:39 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:47 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:35 am
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
I never cared for it much myself, but I can tolerate it if I have to. I cannot tolerate rap or hip hop. It's truly painful and mind-numbing and does more damage than drugs.
Is it the idiom itself , or is it the typical content of the idiom that offends? If it is the content alone that is offensive you could use the idiom as a medium for your own message.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8833
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: ace

Post by henry quirk »

Belinda wrote: Mon Aug 24, 2020 8:40 am
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 11:39 am
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 23, 2020 2:47 am

I hate that song...so...damn...much
I never cared for it much myself, but I can tolerate it if I have to. I cannot tolerate rap or hip hop. It's truly painful and mind-numbing and does more damage than drugs.
Is it the idiom itself , or is it the typical content of the idiom that offends? If it is the content alone that is offensive you could use the idiom as a medium for your own message.
for me: it sucks, as a package
Post Reply