Virtues and assets
William Blake Jr.
compassion, loyalty, goodness of heart and desire to be one's best) be
used against them by people who have no such virtues.
There are many ways to succeed, and many ways to be injured. There are
virtue that can be used against people, and flaws that people can use
on their behalf. So when you see someone's virtues (such as ones I
mentioned above) used against them, what you see is a screaming
injustice.
That's when it's time for someone with sense of justice to come on
their side.
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
Ilya Shambat
stumper
Give me an example of such abuse.
--
~Stumper
fe'do
"stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:EN6cnTr5ncU...@ptd.net...
reading the lackluster wit and
wizdumb of your p0asts may be
the greatest abuse ever handed
down...
Brian Fletcher
"William Blake Jr." <ibsh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152646494.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Well meaning, but perpetuates the personal imbalance.
There are no mistakes in the universe.
BOfL
Brian Fletcher
"fe'do" <frit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p2Usg.7290$cd3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
....therefor reading and responding is self abuse.
BOfL
fe'do
"Brian Fletcher" <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:tWXsg.3204$tE5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
never fear, you'll live
stumper
Probably because you don't know
where I'm going with the request.
BTW
You don't appear to have any virtue to be abused.
So, that was a terrible example.
Better luck next time.
--
~Stumper
fe'do
> fe'do wrote:
>
> > "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
> > news:EN6cnTr5ncU...@ptd.net...
> >> William Blake Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>> Few things infuriate me more than to see people's virtues (such as
> >>> compassion, loyalty, goodness of heart and desire to be one's best) be
> >>> used against them by people who have no such virtues.
> >>>
> >>> There are many ways to succeed, and many ways to be injured. There are
> >>> virtue that can be used against people, and flaws that people can use
> >>> on their behalf. So when you see someone's virtues (such as ones I
> >>> mentioned above) used against them, what you see is a screaming
> >>> injustice.
> >>>
> >>> That's when it's time for someone with sense of justice to come on
> >>> their side.
> >>>
> >>> http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
> >>> Ilya Shambat
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Give me an example of such abuse.
> >
> > reading the lackluster wit and
> > wizdumb of your p0asts may be
> > the greatest abuse ever handed
> > down...
> >
> >
>
>
> Probably because you don't know
> where I'm going with the request.
probablies are definitely within the
scope of the desire/request agenda.
> BTW
> You don't appear to have any virtue to be abused.
it's true. you can't raise bad
if there is no good.
> So, that was a terrible example.
examples are similar to your
probablies, as dull as
dishwater.
> Better luck next time.
having better luck depends on
recognizing less than optimal
luck. must you paste your
dualistic tattoos on everything?
stumper
You sound familiar.
How do you enjoy being non-dualistic
while complaining about dualism all the time?
--
~Stumper
William Blake Jr.
stumper wrote:
> Give me an example of such abuse.
It's all over the place, dude. If you don't see it then you aren't
looking hard enough.
William Blake Jr.
Brian Fletcher wrote:
> Well meaning, but perpetuates the personal imbalance.
>
> There are no mistakes in the universe.
In human society, there are tons of them.
fe'do
familiarity breeds contempt
> How do you enjoy being non-dualistic
> while complaining about dualism all the time?
same way you enjoy life whilst
bitching about death all the time.
stumper
And you cannot give me just one good example?
--
~Stumper
stumper
The enlightened live well and never complain.
--
~Stumper
fe'do
then judging by your many complaints
you must be light years from enlightenment.
stumper
How about you?
--
~Stumper
fe'do
weak bait and switch technique.
do you sell used cars for a living?
fe'do
if you truly want abuse, look
into any mirror.
stumper
I ask simple questions.
That's not complaining.
As a beginning student of Dao and Zen,
I am not expected to be awakened.
You seem to be fond of confusing yourself.
Is that your way of living well?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Am I taxing your patience?
That might be an abuse of a virtue.
Do you know of any abuse
which does not abuse any virtue?
--
~Stumper
fe'do
simple is as simple does.
> That's not complaining.
it could be. you over generalize
into possibilities. way too slippery
for me doncha know.
> As a beginning student of Dao and Zen,
> I am not expected to be awakened.
i cling to the albino druid illuminati
with a side dish of the amazon ladies
of the white tiger. they give frequent
philosophical miles.
> You seem to be fond of confusing yourself.
define seem.
> Is that your way of living well?
the words 'living' and 'well' might
be seen to be incongruous since
you are always exclaiming that
life is suffering. life could then be
seen to be a waste of good
suffering.
fe'do
> fe'do wrote:
>
> > "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
> > news:8gSdnbCqefZ...@ptd.net...
> >> William Blake Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>> stumper wrote:
> >>>> Give me an example of such abuse.
> >>> It's all over the place, dude. If you don't see it then you aren't
> >>> looking hard enough.
> >>>
> >>
> >> And you cannot give me just one good example?
> >
> > if you truly want abuse, look
> > into any mirror.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Am I taxing your patience?
so you're scared of looking
into a mirror?
> That might be an abuse of a virtue.
life is an abuse of the
virtue of death.
> Do you know of any abuse
> which does not abuse any virtue?
the abuse of unenlightenment.
stumper
Life is suffering
but does not have to be.
You seem to be unhappy a lot.
Do you like it that way?
--
~Stumper
stumper
> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
> news:GD-dnTwiJ5p...@ptd.net...
>> fe'do wrote:
>>
>>> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8gSdnbCqefZ...@ptd.net...
>>>> William Blake Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>> Give me an example of such abuse.
>>>>> It's all over the place, dude. If you don't see it then you aren't
>>>>> looking hard enough.
>>>>>
>>>> And you cannot give me just one good example?
>>> if you truly want abuse, look
>>> into any mirror.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Am I taxing your patience?
>
> so you're scared of looking
> into a mirror?
>
>> That might be an abuse of a virtue.
>
> life is an abuse of the
> virtue of death.
>
>> Do you know of any abuse
>> which does not abuse any virtue?
>
> the abuse of unenlightenment.
>
>
Too ambiguous.
--
~Stumper
Immortalist
William Blake Jr. wrote:
> Few things infuriate me more than to see people's virtues (such as
> compassion, loyalty, goodness of heart and desire to be one's best) be
> used against them by people who have no such virtues.
>
Can you give an example of someone who doesn't have a virtue or do you
mean that all people have some degree of being virtuous but may lack or
have particular virtues?
...Researchers in the human sciences have begun to flesh out the
hypothesis that the mind evolved with a universal complex design. Some
anthropologists have returned to an ethnographic record that used to
trumpet differences among cultures and have found an astonishingly
detailed set of aptitudes and tastes that all cultures have in common.
This shared way of thinking, feeling, and living makes us look like a
single tribe, which the anthropologist Donald Brown has called the
Universal People, after Chomsky's Universal Grammar. Hundreds of
traits, from fear of snakes to logical operators, from romantic love to
humorous insults, from poetry to food taboos, from exchange of goods to
mourning the dead, can be found in every society ever documented. It's
not that every universal behavior directly reflects a universal
component of human nature-many arise from an interplay between
universal properties of the mind, universal properties of the body, and
universal properties of the world. Nonetheless, the sheer richness and
detail in the rendering of the Universal People comes as a shock to any
intuition that the mind is a blank slate or that cultures can vary
without limit, and there is something on the list to refute almost any
theory growing out of those intuitions. Nothing can substitute for
seeing Brown's list in full; it is reproduced, with his permission, as
an appendix (see p. 435).
FROM: The Blank Slate:
The Modern Denial of Human Nature
by Steven Pinker
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0142003344/
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1015bc12dgb2m43%40corp.supernews.com
fe'do
yours certainly seems to be.
> but does not have to be.
keep telling yourself that.
> You seem to be unhappy a lot.
define unhappy
> Do you like it that way?
do i like your assumptive speculation
about my state of mind from your
ballpark perspective? hahaha.
fe'do
the abuse of ambiguity then.
stumper
> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Life is suffering
>
> yours certainly seems to be.
>
>> but does not have to be.
>
> keep telling yourself that.
>
>> You seem to be unhappy a lot.
>
> define unhappy
>
>> Do you like it that way?
>
> do i like your assumptive speculation
> about my state of mind from your
> ballpark perspective? hahaha.
>
>
You seem to be afraid of
seeing things as they are.
Do you know why?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Is ambiguity a virtue for you?
--
~Stumper
ibsham...@hotmail.com
Immortalist wrote:
> William Blake Jr. wrote:
> > Few things infuriate me more than to see people's virtues (such as
> > compassion, loyalty, goodness of heart and desire to be one's best) be
> > used against them by people who have no such virtues.
> >
>
> Can you give an example of someone who doesn't have a virtue or do you
> mean that all people have some degree of being virtuous but may lack or
> have particular virtues?
I'm saying that there are virtues (see above) that get frequently taken
advantage of and used against people who have them, and nothing
infuriates me more than to see such things done by people who have no
such virtues.
Likewise, there are bad qualities that frequently make it easier to
advance, which often results in a kakistocratic state of affairs.
So I believe that it's my duty to come to the side of people with the
aforementioned virtues who are being taken advantage of or mistreated,
in order for goodness to thrive. And I would recommend that other
people who care what kind of a world we live in do the same.
Ilya Shambat
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
fe'do
what you're really trying to say
is that i'm afraid of seeing things
the way that you appear to be
seeing them.
fe'do
your attempt at zen riddles
is deplorable.
humble.life
> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
> news:NSmdnZvWDvU...@ptd.net...
>> fe'do wrote:
>>
>>> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>>>> Life is suffering
>>> yours certainly seems to be.
>>>
>>>> but does not have to be.
>>> keep telling yourself that.
>>>
>>>> You seem to be unhappy a lot.
>>> define unhappy
>>>
>>>> Do you like it that way?
>>> do i like your assumptive speculation
>>> about my state of mind from your
>>> ballpark perspective? hahaha.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You seem to be afraid of
>> seeing things as they are.
>> Do you know why?
>
> what you're really trying to say
> is that i'm afraid of seeing things
> the way that you appear to be
> seeing them.
>
>
fe'do
"humble.life" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4hl08v...@individual.net...
i'd stop for dinner but the gas gauge
already reads empty.
Peter Holmgren
"William Blake Jr." <ibsh...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1152646494.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Few things infuriate me more than to see people's virtues (such as
> compassion, loyalty, goodness of heart and desire to be one's best) be
> used against them by people who have no such virtues.
>
> virtue that can be used against people, and flaws that people can use
> on their behalf. So when you see someone's virtues (such as ones I
> mentioned above) used against them, what you see is a screaming
> injustice.
>
> That's when it's time for someone with sense of justice to come on
> their side.
>
> http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
> Ilya Shambat
>
Ah! You're talking about how kamma works. Good analogy!
stumper
> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
> news:NSmdnZvWDvU...@ptd.net...
>> fe'do wrote:
>>
>>> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
>>>> Life is suffering
>>> yours certainly seems to be.
>>>
>>>> but does not have to be.
>>> keep telling yourself that.
>>>
>>>> You seem to be unhappy a lot.
>>> define unhappy
>>>
>>>> Do you like it that way?
>>> do i like your assumptive speculation
>>> about my state of mind from your
>>> ballpark perspective? hahaha.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You seem to be afraid of
>> seeing things as they are.
>> Do you know why?
>
> what you're really trying to say
> is that i'm afraid of seeing things
> the way that you appear to be
> seeing them.
>
>
Definitely not.
If you say you are happy
and you are not harming anyone,
I would say you must be
seeing things as they are.
Why do you appear to be
so unhappy so often?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Is that what you think I am doing?
No wonder you don't answer straightforwardly.
I happen to be doing some common sense reasoning.
Can anyone be completely devoid of virtue
as to make it possible to abuse him
without utilizing any of his virtue?
--
~Stumper
Ivan Marsh
Virtue, as described in Homeric poetry, is anything describing the
character of the person in question... it's not negative or positive.
Lust, greed and deception were considered virtues.
--
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
It's the law.
fe'do
> fe'do wrote:
>
> > "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
> > news:NSmdnZvWDvU...@ptd.net...
> >> fe'do wrote:
> >>
> >>> "stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
> >>>> Life is suffering
> >>> yours certainly seems to be.
> >>>
> >>>> but does not have to be.
> >>> keep telling yourself that.
> >>>
> >>>> You seem to be unhappy a lot.
> >>> define unhappy
> >>>
> >>>> Do you like it that way?
> >>> do i like your assumptive speculation
> >>> about my state of mind from your
> >>> ballpark perspective? hahaha.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> You seem to be afraid of
> >> seeing things as they are.
> >> Do you know why?
> >
> > what you're really trying to say
> > is that i'm afraid of seeing things
> > the way that you appear to be
> > seeing them.
> >
> >
>
>
> Definitely not.
or maybe definitely so.
> If you say you are happy
> and you are not harming anyone,
> I would say you must be
> seeing things as they are.
you may think yourself to be happy
and that you haven't harmed anyone
but that happiness may indeed be the
most harmful thing that you'll ever do
to yourself.
> Why do you appear to be
> so unhappy so often?
talking to you is like trying
to teach rocks how to swim.
fe'do
would it be a wonder if i
answered antistraightforwardly?
> I happen to be doing some common sense reasoning.
in the end all addictions lead to
the same lackluster agenda even
logic and reasoning addictions.
> Can anyone be completely devoid of virtue
> as to make it possible to abuse him
> without utilizing any of his virtue?
you're drowning in concepts.
try coming up for air.
fe'do
"Ivan Marsh" <ann...@you.now> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.12...@you.now...
i ain't a sloth fer nuthin'
doncha know
stumper
Have to tried learning from me
instead of teaching me?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Relax.
I am simply poking fun
at some sweeping hasty conclusions.
--
~Stumper
Brian Fletcher
"William Blake Jr." <ibsh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152703302.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brian Fletcher wrote:
>> Well meaning, but perpetuates the personal imbalance.
>>
>> There are no mistakes in the universe.
>
> In human society, there are tons of them.
>
In that case, when the pendulum swings, it swings from right to wrong, not
right to left.
BOfL
Brian Fletcher
<ibsham...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152730189....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
That will keep your pendulum swinging.
BOfL
Brian Fletcher
"Peter Holmgren" <info@[theravada].dk> wrote in message
news:kMbtg.69$5T6...@news.get2net.dk...
BOfL
fe'do
i'm not teaching, just talking...
fe'do
if i relax any more
i'll be napping
> I am simply poking fun
> at some sweeping hasty conclusions.
you must poke yourself
to death
stumper
Stop nagging people.
--
~Stumper
fe'do
you beg to have your buttons pushed
and then whine when somebody complies
stumper
I like to have something to reply to.
I was concerned about you.
--
~Stumper
fe'do
you'll need to offer something first
in order to get significant replies.
> I was concerned about you.
if i somehow appear to show that
i warrant some type of concern,
then just disregard that.
ibsham...@hotmail.com
stumper wrote:
> William Blake Jr. wrote:
>
> > stumper wrote:
> >> Give me an example of such abuse.
> >
> > It's all over the place, dude. If you don't see it then you aren't
> > looking hard enough.
> >
>
>
> And you cannot give me just one good example?
I can't believe you haven't seen such things. Situations involving such
people (typically women) keep finding me all the time, and I tend to
them. So rather than giving examples I will give you mechanism how such
things happen:
Loyalty - easy to manipulate and use against the person, especially by
people who would exploit such things for personal or collective
advantage.
Demanding a lot of oneself - makes one vulnerable to all kinds of
criticism, especially from people who do not demand such things of
themselves.
Compassion - is played upon and the person having it is seen as weak
and stupid for having it.
Beauty - when people's likes and values are not in accord, with evil
dogmas shaping the attitudes toward beauty, beautiful women are seen as
attractive but are not valued and respected. They are seen as objects
to be had, but since value system does not include valuation of beauty
they are mistreated.
Tenderness, warmth, kindness, delicacy - can be played like a violin
and then misrepresented as weakness or lack of realism by people who'd
rather such things not be a reality of the world, lest their own
degeneracy not be made manifest. Which people, when person having such
qualities is gone from their life, tend to miss that person but still
want to blame and attack her.
Free mind - although it be source of all manmade good, it is
nevertheless under relentless attack for difference from the dogmas of
the collective.
There are more to go here, but I'll stop here, as these are the
qualities had by my muse, as well as by others I've known before, some
of them here.
HTH,
stumper
If you think that way
hastily generalizing all the time,
you will not be able to appreciate
things as they are.
If you look at any concrete example of abuse,
you will find out that life is not always black and white.
--
~Stumper
fe'do
quantum pot kettle black award
nominee qualifications duly noted
and terminally recycled. what else
ya got?
stumper
There are many ways to view any concrete thing.
If you try hard enough you will find a way
to laugh aloud at almost anything.
Try to laugh at yourself
at least once a day.
If you can't,
try to weep for someone
at least once a day.
--
~Stumper
fe'do
and maybe only one way to view
the concreteless?
> If you try hard enough you will find a way
> to laugh aloud at almost anything.
might not find enough true importance in
anything in order to even try hard
> Try to laugh at yourself
> at least once a day.
laughing may also be of such
minor importance that trying
hard may not be worth the
effort.
> If you can't,
> try to weep for someone
> at least once a day.
you certainly deserve all
the pity you can get
stumper
Then, weep for me.
--
~Stumper
fe'do
all lines are busy right now.
try your call again later
William Blake Jr.
stumper wrote:
> If you think that way
> hastily generalizing all the time,
> you will not be able to appreciate
> things as they are.
I'm not generalizing, I am analyzing. I am looking at things according
to their inherent nature and showing where they would lead.
> If you look at any concrete example of abuse,
> you will find out that life is not always black and white.
No, but dynamics are.
stumper
No, you are too lazy to see things as they are.
So, you just cut them off and consider them understood.
There are better ways to handle things.
Have a cup of tea really slow.
Watch a flower bloom.
Do nothing.
Do you feel abused?
--
~Stumper
William Blake Jr.
in. I was raised in USSR and believed in fighting injustice long before
I thought of such things as self-interest or any self-based psychology
that is believed here. So this is quite essential to who I am and has
nothing to do with the things you're talking about.
As for flowers, etc, if you've been reading my work I've been talking
about how I kiss flowers - and some of my better poetry is about
nature. In those poems I like to use extended metaphor to see common
themes through different things and universe as expressed through both.
Really, start looking at things for what they are rather than what the
construct psychology tells you to see. The construct desires to present
all things in reference to itself, which blinds one to the things' true
nature. And that is a very big error.
Ilya Shambat.
http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
fe'do
> William Blake Jr. wrote:
>
> > stumper wrote:
> >> If you think that way
> >> hastily generalizing all the time,
> >> you will not be able to appreciate
> >> things as they are.
> >
> > I'm not generalizing, I am analyzing. I am looking at things according
> > to their inherent nature and showing where they would lead.
> >
> >> If you look at any concrete example of abuse,
> >> you will find out that life is not always black and white.
> >
> > No, but dynamics are.
> >
>
>
> No, you are too lazy to see things as they are.
mirror mirror
> So, you just cut them off and consider them understood.
pushin a lot of amperage thru
your projector bulb there sparkles
> There are better ways to handle things.
so go find some.
> Have a cup of tea really slow.
i just did. gosh, now
i'm enlightened....
> Watch a flower bloom.
i'm already watching a
blooming idiot...
> Do nothing.
make up my mind, would ya?
> Do you feel abused?
after your posts? of course !
stumper
> Please. I am talking about situations that people I know are involved
> in. I was raised in USSR and believed in fighting injustice long before
> I thought of such things as self-interest or any self-based psychology
> that is believed here. So this is quite essential to who I am and has
> nothing to do with the things you're talking about.
>
> As for flowers, etc, if you've been reading my work I've been talking
> about how I kiss flowers - and some of my better poetry is about
> nature. In those poems I like to use extended metaphor to see common
> themes through different things and universe as expressed through both.
>
> Really, start looking at things for what they are rather than what the
> construct psychology tells you to see. The construct desires to present
> all things in reference to itself, which blinds one to the things' true
> nature. And that is a very big error.
>
> Ilya Shambat.
> http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
>
You want more sweeping hasty generalizations?
It's more dangerous to be self-righteous
than to be greedy or even exploitive.
Don't hate people for what they are called;
but, if you must, do so for what they are.
--
~Stumper
stumper
You don't have to.
And you know how.
--
~Stumper
Immortalist
ibsham...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > William Blake Jr. wrote:
> > > compassion, loyalty, goodness of heart and desire to be one's best) be
> > > used against them by people who have no such virtues.
> > >
> >
> > mean that all people have some degree of being virtuous but may lack or
> > have particular virtues?
>
> I'm saying that there are virtues (see above) that get frequently taken
> advantage of and used against people who have them, and nothing
> such virtues.
>
> Likewise, there are bad qualities that frequently make it easier to
> advance, which often results in a kakistocratic state of affairs.
>
> So I believe that it's my duty to come to the side of people with the
> aforementioned virtues who are being taken advantage of or mistreated,
> in order for goodness to thrive. And I would recommend that other
> people who care what kind of a world we live in do the same.
>
So you are trying to address a "free rider problem" in game theory and
your solution is ostracism and shunning? Do we try to reduce the rate
of these crimes or try to eliminate this part of our nature altogether?
In economics and political science, free riders are actors who consume
more than their fair share of a resource, or shoulder less than a fair
share of the costs of its production. The free rider problem is the
question of how to prevent free riding from taking place, or at least
limit its negative effects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/
(1) Ostracism was a procedure under the Athenian democracy where a
prominent citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for
ten years. While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the
victim, ostracism was often pre-emptive in character. It might be a way
of diffusing a major confrontation between rival politicians by
removing one of them from the scene, or of neutralising someone thought
to be a threat to the state, a possible tyrant. Crucially, ostacism had
no relation to the processes of justice. There was no charge or
defence, and the exile was not in fact a penalty. It was simply a
command from the Athenian people that one of their number be gone for
ten years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
(2) Shunning is the act of deliberately avoiding association with, and
habitually keeping away from an individual or group. It is a sanction
against association commonly associated with religious groups following
excommunication or dismembership. In some cases, the shunned person or
group is considered anathema, abominable, or spiritually diseased by
shunning group.
A distinct practice sometimes confused with shunning involves the
severing of ties between new members and those of their friends and
family who disapprove of the faith. The Church of Scientology coined
the word disconnection to refer to that practice.
Shunning aims to exclude, punish, and shame a member who commits acts
seen as harmful to the group, who violates the group's norms, or flees
the group. Usually, shunning is done after formal excommunication or
disfellowship and not before. Shunning is often intended to teach
obedience, discipline disobedience/nonconformance by the shunned and to
punish defiance from the shunned. Shunning can also be intended to
shame such members, to compel them back into conforming membership, and
to punish those who persist in violating the group's norms.
As the practice may destroy marriages, break up families, and separate
children from their parents (or vice versa), it is particularly
controversial. The effect of shunning can be very dramatic or even
devastating on the shunnee, as it can damage or destroy the shunned
member's closest familial, spousal, and social bonds. The extent to
which the shunned member's larger social rights in a society are
affected by such shunning can also make a dramatic difference in the
effect of shunning, beyond the aforementioned costs. In cases where a
group or religion is state-sanctioned, a key power, or in the majority,
a shunned former member may face especially severe social, political,
and/or financial costs. Some, especially researchers of mind control,
brainwashing and menticide groups, identify the practice with
"cult-like" or totalitarian behaviour.
Shunning contains aspects of what is known as relational aggression in
the psychological literature. When used by church members and
member-spouse parents against excommunicant parents it contains
elements of what pyschologists call parental alienation. Extreme
shunning often causes traumas to the shunned (and to their innocent
dependents) similar to what is studied in the psychology of torture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning
> Ilya Shambat
> http://ibshambat.blogspot.com
William Blake Jr.
Immortalist wrote:\
> > I'm saying that there are virtues (see above) that get frequently taken
> > advantage of and used against people who have them, and nothing
> > infuriates me more than to see such things done by people who have no
> > such virtues.
> >
> > Likewise, there are bad qualities that frequently make it easier to
> > advance, which often results in a kakistocratic state of affairs.
> >
> > So I believe that it's my duty to come to the side of people with the
> > aforementioned virtues who are being taken advantage of or mistreated,
> > in order for goodness to thrive. And I would recommend that other
> > people who care what kind of a world we live in do the same.
> >
>
> So you are trying to address a "free rider problem" in game theory and
> your solution is ostracism and shunning?
Um, no to both. I am talking about how people's virtues can be unfairly
used against them. An entirely different problem.
But thanks for the tip on the free rider stuff.
William Blake Jr.
stumper wrote:
> You want more sweeping hasty generalizations?
>
> It's more dangerous to be self-righteous
> than to be greedy or even exploitive.
Oh, me dangerous all right. Heh.
> Don't hate people for what they are called;
> but, if you must, do so for what they are.
Good advice.
possum
"stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:Ssidnba3TrQ...@ptd.net...
lol! don't judge by appearances,
it's what's on the inside that counts.
demand an MRI scan.
>
> --
> ~Stumper
Immortalist
So people taking advantage of other people's virtues or lack of them is
not similar to the theft in the game theory where free riders take
advantage of others because of weakness I presented? If not can you
show similarities and non-similarities and then show the distinction
which produces the difference then? I saw a similarity myself.
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com
Immortalist wrote:
> So people taking advantage of other people's virtues or lack of them is
> not similar to the theft in the game theory where free riders take
> advantage of others because of weakness I presented?
I mean that these people with virtues spoken of get mistreated and
attacked and dealt with badly because the virtues make it easier for
such things to take place.
Regarding the free rider problem, well, let's just say that those don't
destroy people. There may be some similarity here, but I'm talking
about an issue closer at hand and one affecting more people.
extr...@hotmail.com
ilya_sha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> > So people taking advantage of other people's virtues or lack of them is
> > not similar to the theft in the game theory where free riders take
> > advantage of others because of weakness I presented?
>
> I mean that these people with virtues spoken of get mistreated and
> attacked and dealt with badly because the virtues make it easier for
> such things to take place.
>
But most people don't abuse nice people, they return the favor. It
seems like your argument is something like, because people can steal
things, everyone will steal.
William Blake Jr.
extr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ilya_sha...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Immortalist wrote:
> > > So people taking advantage of other people's virtues or lack of them is
> > > not similar to the theft in the game theory where free riders take
> > > advantage of others because of weakness I presented?
> >
> > I mean that these people with virtues spoken of get mistreated and
> > attacked and dealt with badly because the virtues make it easier for
> > such things to take place.
> >
>
> But most people don't abuse nice people, they return the favor.
Oh no. I'm not talking about "nice." "Nice" is nothing but social
onanism. I am talking about genuine, good, sincere, giving, inspired
people. People want to tear them down; people want to attack them or
walk all over them or wore. In a covenant of insincerity, sincerity
becomes the threat. In man it is seen as criminal; in woman's case,
people just want to destroy her. That's how the big lie keeps
perpetuating itself through generations and the way of ingrained
insincerity requires destruction of sincerity wherever it may appear.
> It seems like your argument is something like, because people can steal
> things, everyone will steal.
Nothing like that at all.
