Communication continued...
potr...@gmail.com
theme of previous posts.
As some of you hopefully know by now I feel the greatest problem
humanity faces in the philosophical arena is not some pedantic
glorification of nonsense concepts like good and evil---polarities that
everyone likes to club everyone else over the head with (their version
of course).
The root of all "evil" is actually something as mundane as plain 'ol
communication. If we don't understand each other's neurons we often get
pissed off and fight in frustration. Might as well howl at the wind for
blowing in your face and being the wind.
Basically it is my perception that where morality is concerned that
we (humans) are arguing in circles with no conclusion because
essentially our operational definitions are still ill defined (when it
comes to everyday language at least). Literally speaking I think we are
just grunting (dis)approvals when we think we are sharing something--
simply because we sounded the words..
To me genuine communication involves having the trust in someone to
follow another's thought process and not an attempt to control it or
lecture. It is a slow song and a couple in love dancing. We can't both
be leads because if we try we are just going to step over each others
toes and dance poorly. So what I'm asking is to just try without
cynacism to be my partner for a moment and let me lead. Don't argue
other than for clarification and let me push you in the direction I
wish. It's only for the duration of this post I'm making this request.
You can lead the next one if you wish but for any takers please avoid
the temptation of going off on your own tangent. If something is
unclear... just ask. I'll do my best to further clarify my perhaps
annoyingly persistant line of questioning.
I certainly don't disagree with everything you or anyone else
says---the problem is I'm not necessarily convinced by anything either.
When I hear people speak it quite often seems to be the bellow of ships
criss-crossing in a thick fog. I have a sense of something out there
trying to offer it's two cents to the world but there are too many
unanswered questions and conflicting statements to say "I get it". (I'm
not saying I'm not part of this problem either)
As for why I occasionally drop by here and harass you gentleman?
I enjoy reading the views here for the simple reason you guys have
obviously asked questions about yourselves that most people are scared
to ask or gloss over in their thoughts. I do have my beefs with some
areas of Objectivism but my main "issue" is primarily how you can
reconcile an alleged love for nonviolence when many of you seem to
advocate violence on an unprecidented scale. "War = peace" is a
distortion of language too great for my personal pallet and probably
why I am a pacifist. I can get political if you get under my skin, but
by and large I focus on issues more from a philsophical camp rather
than a (perhaps) more expedient political one.
So this leads me to my question....
Assume (just for a moment) the assertion that most philosophical
differences are simply the result of poor communication that initiates
a negative emotional response in someone which (over time) can cause a
large divide and further miscommunication (even wars). I'll even
suggest that this begins at a very young age when one is conscripted
into a culture by the birth lottery.
A. What steps can one take as an individual to more effectively
communicate with someone when you seem to cause them emotional
distress? (Don't say learn english please because I think everyone in
the human race is a victim here) Assume the party in question doesn't
even want to try to communicate...only insult or even kill you
B. What strategy might civilization take to fix this alleged problem?
(Again please just accept this hypothesis as a truth momentarily)
Potroast.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> A. What steps can one take as an individual to more effectively
> communicate with someone when you seem to cause them emotional
> distress? (Don't say learn english please because I think everyone in
> the human race is a victim here) Assume the party in question doesn't
> even want to try to communicate...only insult or even kill you
None. If you can't communicate peacibly with someone, then don't try to
communicate with them at all.
>
> B. What strategy might civilization take to fix this alleged problem?
> (Again please just accept this hypothesis as a truth momentarily)
There are none. Go to a desert island (just you). I assure you, you will
not have any problems in communication there.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
"None. If you can't communicate peacibly with someone, then don't try
to
communicate with them at all."
Again let's play pretend and assume non-communication is not an
option. Give me hypothetical options that perhaps don't work but can
possibly be tweaked. I don't view any problem as unsolvable. I only
view myself as too stupid to determine what that solution is.
--------
"What strategy might civilization take to fix this alleged problem?
There are none. Go to a desert island (just you). I assure you, you
will not have any problems in communication there."
--------
It's interesting that you say that. I believe that's probably one
reason monks often do or even why people socialize with the likeminded
(often whatever tribe they happened to be born into ). The fact is I'm
not interested in limiting myself by socializing within only one
thought process or group. There are many to experience and I'm running
through the gambit trying not to pass too many judgments along the way,
I didn't plan this way of living. I'd prefer just one but there are so
many voices saying so many things.
So I don't view this problem as a "me" problem alone. I can assure
you it's "our" problem. Everyone can't go to a desert island. If
everyone was easily able to communicate why they feel so strongly about
particular issues-- the world would be a peaceful place. There is no
"point of view gun" beyond our pitiful words.
If one of us is tapping our toes and the other joins the rhythm it
means we mostly are experiencing the same event. It doesn't mean the
second participant is a slave and forced to continue, it only means
they understood what you are aiming for on that particular beat..
However if one taps their toes and the other begins to bang out a
different tune then something is amiss. I'm not saying my beat is the
right or the best one... only that if you wish to understand it and
offer legitimate feedback I need to hear the right tempo back. When I
recognize that, then I'll say "a ha... he really gets what I'm trying
to say" (and vice versa of course).
Generally speaking two scientists (or any professionals) understand
the context of their field and the lingo. In day to day living though
there is no official field or counterpart lingo though It's a
scattering of people from various cultures and subcultures each with
their own vision as to what constitutes important and perceptions of
what words mean-even within the same language or nation. For instance
if one were to poll Americans of various demographics to define
"freedom" it will quickly prove it's a fragmented concept.
I think words like 'apple' and 'dog' are well defined because they
are physical and even have a useful visual element to them-- I can see
an apple and it helps me understand it. When we have entities like say
"atoms" although we cannot see them, we can probe them for
properties without emotional baggage (which makes us lose objectivity).
The problems occur when we move into even more complex entities like
"goodness" or "peace" that don't have quite so easy or
universal definitions and invoke emotion. We can't view a
"goodness" or contain all it's properties therefore there is a
constant stream of unsaid things when we attempt to discuss the topic.
This is made worse by the pollution of mysticism (derived from
religion) that still seems to permeate our society. Furthermore by
doing the logical thing and actually probing the issue to determine
genuine properties--- we risk ostracism, jail, or worse.
The truth as far as I can determine is that everyone wings it where
philosophy is concerned. Some people may define themselves as "
"xyz-ists/ish/ans" but I have few doubts everyone is deviating in
some way or form from what they claim to follow simply because everyone
can't help being an individual and language is what it currently is.
So the questions remains but let me rephrase and tweak slightly to
hopefully be more coherent.....
How does a society make the observational definitions more precise on
a very touchy subject like everyday morality?
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> Again let's play pretend
Nah. Let's not. Until you find some way to make this vaguely on
topic that is. You started with some vague thing about the root
of all evil being having a moral code. Not much point in going on
until you learn to communicate in English. And to have some
contact with Rand's theory, since she most emphatically had a
moral code.
Socks
potr...@gmail.com
Nah. Let's not. Until you find some way to make this vaguely on topic
that is. You started with some vague thing about the root of all evil
being having a moral code. Not much point in going on until you learn
to communicate in English. And to have some
contact with Rand's theory, since she most emphatically had a moral
code.
Actually I said....
The root of all "evil" is actually something as mundane as plain 'ol
"communication. "
Thanks for fueling my point.
Cheers.
potr...@gmail.com
Correction:
I should have stated "OPERATATIONAL defintions" not "observational
defintions" Maybe this makes more sense?
Puppet_Sock
> Actually I said....
>
> The root of all "evil" is actually something as mundane as plain 'ol
> "communication. "
Actually you said
==
As some of you hopefully know by now I feel the greatest problem
humanity faces in the philosophical arena is not some pedantic
glorification of nonsense concepts like good and evil---polarities that
everyone likes to club everyone else over the head with (their version
of course).
==
That is, good and evil are nonsense.
Now, go away and hang your head in shame as you deserve.
Anybody who can seriously entertain such guff does not belong
in this news group. And probably will be dead soon anyway,
as he is a dreadful tard who will likely walk into the arms of
somebody who knows the difference between good and evil.
Because the only defense such a debilitated monkey has is
to hide and hope nobody notices his shameful lack.
Socks
potr...@gmail.com
Really please show me where I go on to say that? I think a better
description of what I believe is that the "words "good" and "evil" are
somewhat nonsense because they don't yet have operational defintions
that are meaninful enough.Nor does this statement me I believe morality
is relative. Big difference.
I specifically asked at the beginning of the post to play along and not
try and lead no? Did anyone force you to reply?
You are too impatient to prove your rightness and intelligence rather
than try following my thought process. Because you misunderstand what I
am saying
about fundimental aspects of morality you became emotionally provoked
thus began the process of turning me into a monster.
Classic.
I didn't post looking for a fight and I was just looking to have some
questions answered but it's my question not yours.
Ever inflamitory word you utter does more to prove my point.
Puppet_Sock
> "That is, good and evil are nonsense. "
>
> Really please show me where I go on to say that?
You snipped the quote, and ignored it again. Read your
first post again.
===
As some of you hopefully know by now I feel the greatest problem
humanity faces in the philosophical arena is not some pedantic
glorification of nonsense concepts like good and evil---polarities that
everyone likes to club everyone else over the head with (their version
of course).
===
"Nonsense concepts like good and evil." You can't even keep in
mind what you posted long enough to be indignant about it.
Now go away and hang your head in shame as you deserve.
You are off topic and totally foolish. And in need of more help
than I am willing to give for free.
Socks
potr...@gmail.com
clear, I'm not trying to assign blame to you for this miscommunication.
I definitely could explain it better and you most certainly could be a
better listener rather than lecture me in this particular instance.
This is why I spent several paragraphs asked specifically just to
play along to my lead in the beginning and refrain "from cynicism"
while we work out the correct way to communicate my thoughts. I don't
need you to listen to my own words. I'm looking for authentic feedback
but for that to happen we need to negotiate a connection. We obviously
haven't done that yet because your too busy making me into the Gestapo
. What's ironic is that is exactly what I predicted happens in these
kinds of situations.
I cannot tell if you are authentically trying to communicate or just
expressing angst but my hand is still open. I don't take your insults
personally. It's quite normal and natural. Everyone seems to be like
that when someone rubs them the wrong way on any given day.
Again I don't believe anyone has forced you at gunpoint to respond up
to now right? So let me try again rephrasing again for any takers.
What I mean by "operational definition".....
If scientist A says frogs pass xyz test---then another scientist must
be able to duplicate the results of what a frog using similar tests.
(i.e. They are not expected to reason it in their mind) Thus the
concept of "frog" becomes a commodity concept not subject to
emotionalism and debate. Frog is the results of XYZ test schema that
meet this agreed upon criteria.
Likewise, if someone says goodness represents "xyx"tests every
human being must be able to confirm it using the same set of tests. The
problem as I see it is the term "goodness" operational definitions are
NOT universal and too broad with mixed in mysticism. I believe this
happens because people are quick to become emotional and
defensive...thereby preventing simply agreements on tests and therefore
terms.
Some concepts seem easy (i.e. don't kill) but on closer inspection it
seems people find plenty of escape clauses when they chose to
reengeener language unilaterally. So what ends up happening is people
may as well be arguing apples and oranges when debating morality
issues. When two different philosophical camps meet they are debating
gibberish to each other until those terms are negotiated because
politics and emotionalism gets in the way.
I can observe this effect constantly in my daily living and watching
the news but how might one go about eliminating this problem?
Even if one killed everyone that didn't agree with them, the tendency
would still remain in the next generation to splinter into a subgroup
because of an initial incident of poorly understood or phrased
communication thus starting the cycle yet again (leading to very real
ideological differences out of spite more than anything).
It's a problem buried deep in our neural meat.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> We obviously
> haven't done that yet because your too busy making me into the Gestapo
Heh heh. What, you resent being called a fool when you
behave like a fool?
Go away and hang your head in shame. You have not the first
clue what is going on in here.
And you are grossly off topic, and getting farther. Objectivism
is a particular philsophy by a particular person. That's what is
on topic here. Connect up to that or go away.
Peferably *and* go away.
Socks
potr...@gmail.com
"And you are grossly off topic, and getting farther"
I thought I started this thread and set the conditions? However if
you truly believe I've somehow violated HMO rules or Google forum
guidelines I suggest you contact the appropriate parties for
confirmation and action. I will apologize to you when informed by Tim
or Google staff I have done so. Here are the links to make your
complaint....
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/hpo/
http://groups.google.ca/support/bin/request.py
Otherwise I am forced to believe someone else is grossly off topic and
being unauthenic in responses because they have become all emotional
for the reasons I outlined. Perhaps in this instance this was triggered
because of one of my own statements or a character flaw of your own.
Again though blame is not something of interest to me only having my
question understood and discussed.
-------
"Heh heh. What, you resent being called a fool when you behave like a
fool? "
-------
of course in my eyes it appears quite different. I'd like to note
you are quite brave when seperated by the miles of fibre optic cabling
that is the Internet. I'm curious, would you speak like that to
someone that was a 300 pound prison convict sitting next to you? I also
believe ad hominems in our courts and universities are usually
considered undesirable and a position of weakness no?
-------
"You have not the first clue what is going on in here. "
-------
You can't "win" by throwing more insults at me because there is nothing
to win. All you've done is left a sincere question unanswered and we've
both failed to communicate. Bravo for us.
Again, how is one to "get a clue" if others refuse to communicate
politely and have no interest in listening to anyone but their own
versions of words? Bob says there is no way. I too know of no way but
that doesn't mean there isn't. It just means we're too dumb to figure
it out. This is why I generally think people end up resorting with old
faithful... violence.
For now I guess all I can do is continue my end of the dialogue and
hope you eventually settle down or someone here really wants to take a
sincere shot at understanding where I'm coming from. This isn't some
random post sock and this isn't the first time I've been to HMO to
discuss it.
potr...@gmail.com
empiracism might help.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=rss.index
The point is people "THINK" they understand what someone is saying
because they hear the sounds or read the text but are actually are
drawing misses constantly.
Sometimes when a miss happens the march to war begins. Eventually your
enemy does indeed become your enemy. Congratulations. Yet another
generation perpetuating war for the sake of mental masterbation --
rather than rationally trying to resolve disputes with dialog.
We are soooo brilliant.
Chris Cathcart
Joyce
1. Patriarchialist rationalism and presemantic desituationism
"Class is unattainable," says Debord. However, if capitalist
posttextual theory holds, we have to choose between presemantic
desituationism and dialectic neocultural theory. Foucault suggests the
use of objectivism to modify and deconstruct culture.
Therefore, the example of presemantic desituationism which is a central
theme of Joyce's Dubliners is also evident in Ulysses, although in a
more self-falsifying sense. Marx uses the term 'capitalist
posttextual theory' to denote a capitalist whole.
In a sense, Porter[1] states that we have to choose between objectivism
and precultural sublimation. Any number of theories concerning not
discourse, but neodiscourse may be found.
2. Joyce and the textual paradigm of narrative
"Society is part of the defining characteristic of truth," says
Bataille; however, according to la Tournier[2] , it is not so much
society that is part of the defining characteristic of truth, but
rather the fatal flaw, and some would say the paradigm, of society.
Therefore, in Finnegan's Wake, Joyce affirms capitalist posttextual
theory; in Ulysses, however, he deconstructs objectivism. A number of
patriarchialisms concerning capitalist posttextual theory exist.
In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the concept of textual
sexuality. However, the primary theme of la Fournier's[3] essay on
presemantic desituationism is the difference between sexual identity
and language. Debord promotes the use of structural neopatriarchialist
theory to attack sexism.
Therefore, Sontag's analysis of objectivism implies that the task of
the observer is social comment. If cultural narrative holds, we have to
choose between objectivism and precapitalist discourse.
In a sense, the characteristic theme of the works of Joyce is the
collapse, and eventually the absurdity, of conceptual class. Lyotard
uses the term 'postcultural objectivism' to denote not
situationism, as capitalist posttextual theory suggests, but
subsituationism.
But Tilton[4] suggests that we have to choose between objectivism and
the postcapitalist paradigm of context. The subject is interpolated
into a presemantic desituationism that includes consciousness as a
paradox.
In a sense, objectivism implies that academe is a legal fiction. If
capitalist posttextual theory holds, we have to choose between
objectivism and dialectic feminism.
3. Capitalist posttextual theory and pretextual capitalist theory
"Language is part of the failure of sexuality," says Derrida.
Therefore, many narratives concerning a self-supporting whole may be
discovered. Pickett[5] holds that we have to choose between neocultural
socialism and the structural paradigm of expression.
The primary theme of Reicher's[6] model of capitalist posttextual
theory is the stasis, and thus the economy, of capitalist society.
However, the subject is contextualised into a precultural rationalism
that includes language as a reality. The characteristic theme of the
works of Joyce is the common ground between culture and sexual
identity.
If one examines capitalist posttextual theory, one is faced with a
choice: either reject Lacanist obscurity or conclude that the goal of
the writer is significant form, given that narrativity is
interchangeable with consciousness. But Sontag suggests the use of
capitalist posttextual theory to analyse language. Debord's analysis
of the capitalist paradigm of reality implies that art is capable of
deconstruction.
"Society is elitist," says Baudrillard; however, according to
Wilson[7] , it is not so much society that is elitist, but rather the
fatal flaw of society. It could be said that Lacan uses the term
'objectivism' to denote the role of the poet as participant. An
abundance of sublimations concerning pretextual capitalist theory
exist.
In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the distinction between
figure and ground. Therefore, if objectivism holds, the works of Joyce
are empowering. Bataille promotes the use of postsemanticist dialectic
theory to deconstruct the status quo.
The primary theme of Reicher's[8] essay on capitalist posttextual
theory is a mythopoetical totality. However, the main theme of the
works of Joyce is the bridge between truth and class. In Finnegan's
Wake, Joyce affirms pretextual capitalist theory; in Ulysses, although,
he reiterates modern posttextual theory.
"Society is intrinsically responsible for hierarchy," says Sontag;
however, according to von Ludwig[9] , it is not so much society that is
intrinsically responsible for hierarchy, but rather the economy, and
some would say the futility, of society. Therefore, several narratives
concerning the role of the observer as reader may be found. Baudrillard
suggests the use of pretextual capitalist theory to read and challenge
sexual identity.
But Werther[10] suggests that the works of Joyce are postmodern. The
subtextual paradigm of discourse holds that culture may be used to
oppress the underprivileged.
It could be said that the primary theme of Sargeant's[11] model of
capitalist posttextual theory is not, in fact, appropriation, but
preappropriation. Sartre's essay on pretextual capitalist theory
implies that society has objective value.
But Bataille promotes the use of objectivism to deconstruct outdated
perceptions of sexual identity. The failure, and subsequent futility,
of capitalist posttextual theory intrinsic to Fellini's Satyricon
emerges again in La Dolce Vita.
Therefore, the premise of pretextual capitalist theory holds that the
State is meaningless, given that Baudrillard's critique of Lacanist
obscurity is valid. In Satyricon, Fellini analyses capitalist
posttextual theory; in Amarcord he affirms pretextual capitalist
theory.
Thus, Sartre suggests the use of objectivism to modify class. If
pretextual capitalist theory holds, we have to choose between
capitalist posttextual theory and capitalist neodialectic theory.
In a sense, Lacan uses the term 'pretextual capitalist theory' to
denote the common ground between consciousness and society. Porter[12]
states that the works of Fellini are empowering.
It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a objectivism
that includes language as a whole. The main theme of the works of
Fellini is the role of the artist as writer.
However, in La Dolce Vita, Fellini deconstructs capitalist posttextual
theory; in 8 1/2, although, he analyses objectivism. The subject is
contextualised into a semiotic narrative that includes culture as a
totality.
Therefore, the premise of capitalist posttextual theory holds that the
raison d'etre of the poet is significant form. The characteristic
theme of Drucker's[13] analysis of objectivism is the difference
between sexual identity and society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
1. Porter, L. V. W. (1993) Capitalist posttextual theory and
objectivism. Loompanics
2. la Tournier, L. ed. (1971) The Circular Sea: Objectivism and
capitalist posttextual theory. Panic Button Books
3. la Fournier, M. F. (1997) Objectivism, nihilism and the
postdialectic paradigm of reality. Cambridge University Press
4. Tilton, T. ed. (1982) The Dialectic of Narrative: Capitalist
posttextual theory and objectivism. Loompanics
5. Pickett, S. G. (1979) Objectivism in the works of Lynch.
Schlangekraft
6. Reicher, E. R. M. ed. (1994) Reassessing Realism: Objectivism and
capitalist posttextual theory. University of North Carolina Press
7. Wilson, W. T. (1971) Objectivism in the works of Eco. Loompanics
8. Reicher, E. ed. (1984) Neocultural Theories: Capitalist posttextual
theory and objectivism. O'Reilly & Associates
9. von Ludwig, Z. B. D. (1999) Objectivism in the works of
Mapplethorpe. University of Oregon Press
10. Werther, J. ed. (1978) The Meaninglessness of Class: Nihilism,
objectivism and cultural libertarianism. Schlangekraft
11. Sargeant, A. B. P. (1996) Objectivism in the works of Fellini.
And/Or Press
12. Porter, I. F. ed. (1989) Capitalist Narratives: Objectivism and
capitalist posttextual theory. Loompanics
13. Drucker, K. (1974) Capitalist posttextual theory and objectivism.
University of North Carolina Press
potr...@gmail.com
$url = "http://www.cnn.com/";
$data = implode("", file($url));
// Get content items
preg_match_all ("/<div class=\"contentitem\">([^`]*?)<\/div>/", $data,
$matches);
// Begin feed
header ("Content-Type: text/xml; charset=ISO-8859-1");
echo "<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"ISO-8859-1\" ?>\n";
?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<channel>
<title>PHPit Latest Content</title>
<description>The latest content from PHPit
(http://www.phpit.net), screen scraped!</description>
<link>http://www.phpit.net</link>
<language>en-us</language>
<?
// Loop through each content item
foreach ($matches[0] as $match) {
// First, get title
preg_match ("/\">([^`]*?)<\/a><\/h3>/", $match, $temp);
$title = $temp['1'];
$title = strip_tags($title);
$title = trim($title);
// Second, get url
preg_match ("/<a href=\"([^`]*?)\">/", $match, $temp);
$url = $temp['1'];
$url = trim($url);
// Third, get text
preg_match ("/<p>([^`]*?)<span class=\"byline\">/", $match, $temp);
$text = $temp['1'];
$text = trim($text);
// Fourth, and finally, get author
preg_match ("/<span class=\"byline\">By ([^`]*?)<\/span>/", $match,
$temp);
$author = $temp['1'];
$author = trim($author);
// Echo RSS XML
echo "<item>\n";
echo "\t\t\t<title>" . strip_tags($title) . "</title>\n";
echo "\t\t\t<link>http://www.phpit.net" . strip_tags($url) .
"</link>\n";
echo "\t\t\t<description>" . strip_tags($text) .
"</description>\n";
echo "\t\t\t<content:encoded><![CDATA[ \n";
echo $text . "\n";
echo " ]]></content:encoded>\n";
echo "\t\t\t<dc:creator>" . strip_tags($author) .
"</dc:creator>\n";
echo "\t\t</item>\n";
}
?>
</channel>
</rss>
Your point?
potr...@gmail.com
I'm not here to confuse you further but don't let egocentrism lead
you to assume because something may appear to be gibberish to you means
it so to someone else or that it lacks usefulness. If something I say
doesn't make sense to you please feel free to ask a specific question
rather than always ridicule en masse. If I worded a sentence poorly I
would happily rephrase. Despite the attacks, I'm fairly sure I won't
collapse to into a pool of womanly sobs for your cruel amusement. We
will bump and grind occasionally but there seems no point in behaving
like savages and marking our own territories with our urine and feces.
Indeed I can appear to be a post-modernist generator but if you look
back at my posts over the years, I think you'll find a consistency that
doesn't strike me as random. The reason you don't understand is because
you already know everything there is to know and don't bother ever
asking a question. Surely your belief in Objectivism can withstand a
little questioning from me and if not, then the hell with it no?
If you wish to call yourself a righty tomato worshipper... seriously
I'm fine with that. I don't consider myself lefty or righty though.
Labeling myself left or right robs me of my identity and individualism.
I would then have to conform to some herd mentality that will
inevitably try to conscript me into their dirty little wars and
ideologies. I have some attributes of both based on what I believe
sensible observations and even some that are my own.
Surely as an alleged Objectivist you can understand my wish to
remain an individual? Or must I now bend my will to your collective to
fit in? Personally, I've always believed freedom is about trying new
things and broadening horizons without having to do that.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
>Personally, I've always believed freedom is about trying new
> things and broadening horizons without having to do that.
Try another news group.
Socks
Joe Teicher
> The root of all "evil" is actually something as mundane as plain 'ol
> communication. If we don't understand each other's neurons we often get
> pissed off and fight in frustration. Might as well howl at the wind for
> blowing in your face and being the wind.
This is just a really bad idea. Just think about human conflict for a
moment, and you will see that it very often has to do with actual not
just apparent disagreement.
>
> So this leads me to my question....
>
> Assume (just for a moment) the assertion that most philosophical
> differences are simply the result of poor communication that initiates
> a negative emotional response in someone which (over time) can cause a
> large divide and further miscommunication (even wars). I'll even
> suggest that this begins at a very young age when one is conscripted
> into a culture by the birth lottery.
>
> A. What steps can one take as an individual to more effectively
> communicate with someone when you seem to cause them emotional
> distress? (Don't say learn english please because I think everyone in
> the human race is a victim here) Assume the party in question doesn't
> even want to try to communicate...only insult or even kill you
Here is an expression that it seems you have never heard: "actions
speak louder than words." You seem to be unaware that humans can do
more than just talk, they can also act, and what they communicate via
their actions is not complicated by the ambiguity of human language.
>
> B. What strategy might civilization take to fix this alleged problem?
> (Again please just accept this hypothesis as a truth momentarily)
>
When people are concerned that they are not understanding each other,
they can try referring to reality, which is the same for both of them.
Maybe if society pushed the idea that reality is the same for everyone,
people would use that technique and everything would be cool.
Joe Teicher
potr...@gmail.com
" that it very often has to do with actual not just apparent
disagreement."
I completely agree with that statement but I'd like to amend
something to it. I believe that one of the chief reasons that comes
about is because people are driven by egotism caused by
miscommunication. For instance think how Objectivism has already
splintered somewhat. I imagine this will only become more pronounced
with time. How many versions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam exist?
If people would spend more time listening to others thought trains
and less time focusing on the seeming differences, I think it would go
a long way towards a better world. The difficulty I find is that no one
takes this issue seriously when I think it probably is the number one
reason for conflict. It's like Adam Sandler's mother in "The
Waterboy". Everyone instantly labels everyone "the Devil..the Devil"
What an original and positive methodology for solving the world ills.
---------------
"Here is an expression that it seems you have never heard: "actions
speak louder than words." You seem to be unaware that humans can do
more than just talk, they can also act, and what they communicate via
their actions is not complicated by the ambiguity of human language."
---------------
Whilst this is true, this is not an either/or situation.
Actions alone are also meaningless without the interpretation of
words afterwards. A monkey can watch a human perform an action but it
can't be "good" or "evil" to him... only personally pleasant or
unpleasant. Any particular monkey may decide that killing all his
rivals on a whim is "pleasant". Does it make it "right" or a desirable
situation?
The words weave the "righteousness" of things especially for the next
generation that is born clueless. If there is no clarity and uniformity
in their use, while some communication does occur it is constantly
intermingled with gibberish that goes undetected. While Objectivists
might mostly agree on a particular terminology, the second they speak
to another group you may as well be speaking Chinese to each other. It
may sound like you're communicating but if you each "got it" completely
then (pardon my English) why the fuck are you arguing? Don't you wish
to ease communication to help facilitate trade and peaceful relations?
Isn't rationalism your goal and doesn't precise terminology assist in
that?
What I propose is "operational definitions" (read previous post
above for my definition of what I mean by that term) that aren't
subject to debate. Again the difficulty is getting people to
acknowledge this is a serious problem that needs resolution (of all
political persuasions). We act like a bunch of immature brats every
time someone uses words differently than ourselves and this generates
hostility in return.
The problem is so gigantic half the time I don't know whether to laugh
or cry. Freedom is this. No Freedom is that. Frickin lets put our foot
down and decide what it is then move on a define another word for any
deviation from that. It's not impossible to do. Scientists do it all
the time. The only reason why it doesn't happen in politics/philosophy
is because people get all emotional and immediately go about plonking
each other-- rather than try and understand this concept isn't a threat
to their ideology--only to their outright (and ongoing) stupidity.
And no it's not just me. Look at the current administration. Is
Bush's idea of "freedom" the same as yours? Is the Iran's version of
freedom yours? How about the guy who lives 3 doors down? We are all
barking at each other like savages rather than communicating.
---------------
"When people are concerned that they are not understanding each other,
they can try referring to reality, which is the same for both of them.
Maybe if society pushed the idea that reality is the same for everyone,
people would use that technique and everything would be cool."
-----------------
Joe, I too believe people exist in the same reality. However there
are many reasons why individuals react differently. Chiefly, by the
vary nature of being an individual, one pays attention and prioritizes
information differently. You may feel looking at the state of one's
shoes determines the value of an individual. I may feel that being
clean shaven is the determinate. We build up our moralities around
those issues. This is not to say that the shoes, shirts and value don't
exist independently of our thought processes, it's just whose opinion
is the correct one? (There is one incidentally)
The answer of course could be determined by agreeing upon the use of
the term "value" (by deriving a test for it) and then doing a study
with a large sampling to determine if value is exceeded by shoes or
shaving. Screaming needlessly at each other over terminology seems
utterly pointless and downright laughable. If one wishes to define
freedom as "eating dog shit" I'm perfectly comfortable adopting
that usage. I''ll just find another word to define what I find
personally desirable. The same applies for "capitalism",
"heroic", "goodness", etc...
There do exist solutions to these sort of problems that may be
adoptable to this task (If it's ever taken seriously). Let me give you
an example from the world of programming.
When you surf to a particular page your browser may receives data
from all sorts of sources simultaneously. For instance you may go
salesforce.com and see an HR report. On the same page there may be
other data that comes via an RSS feed from somewhere else. There may
also be dozens of other services coming from a variety of other
companies being channels through salesforce.com. In fact even XHTML
(defacto the current standard for displaying data on the WWW) can be
considered a service of sorts since even older versions of HTML can
also be displayed.
Your browser is responsible for making sense of all the characters so
that you don't have to worry about the mumbo jumbo going on behind the
scenes. However there is no way for a browser to account for every
possibility and situation. There very well may be two data sources that
use the tags <pay> to describe something. One might be from a source
describing some business transaction. Another may be from the HR
department. So your browser is stuck. What should I do with the term
"<pay>" and how may I make sense of it and put it to use?
If every programmer did whatever the hell they wanted with no agreed
upon conventions then the WWW would not exist period. So one way to get
around these problems is this clever concept of "namespace". Two
pieces of data can choose to use the same namespace but then they must
be in 100% agreement in defining "<pay>". Otherwise they typically
would require a distinct namespace. In this manner your browser goes
"Here you go. Have an nice day". What you do with the data from
there is up to you. If a programmer ignores conventions the browser
throws up and the user will (typicaly) get a error message rather than
gibberish. (a situation highly preferable to the wrong data)
Anyhow, while this example may not be usable in everyday
communication it does demonstrate a very real problem that is widely
recognized in the programming world but never taken seriously when
people turn off their computers. What people need to ask themselves is
why would this problem exist in programming if it didn't actually exist
in the outside world as well? Obviously people aren't communicating
exactly the same and this is why we needed this extra step.
I believe we live with this communication problem every time we
speak/write and it doesn't go away when you forget about my post
tomorrow (or laugh at how bad my grammer is). If your phone rings and
you answer it, some of what you are saying is garbage. When you listen
to the news... garbage. When you read my post... garbage. When you
speak about objectivism... garbage. The degree varies but always
persistent.
So why would one wish to perpetuate their own miscommunication? This
effects Rand and Marx equally. Personally I enjoy it when I feel that
I've actually communicated with someone rather than spout half
gibberish to them (and vice versa). What use is it to either of us when
we bark at each other? There are no "buts" that I can see for
advocating the status quo. Only continued excuses based on how
difficult and profound an undertaking this would be.
Potroast
potr...@gmail.com
Me and Joe wish to come to agreement as to what "freedom" means for
now until the end of time.
We finally agree freedom is what happens when you take 2 grams of C4
and place it in a pile of between 10-20 kg of steaming warm donkey dung
and detonate while standing 50.6 meters away. Along comes Bob and
wishes to know what freedom is so we graciously give him the
instructions so that he may experience it in all its glory.
If Bob then decides he doesn't like our version of freedom, he is
free to invent his own <whatever> but he can't call it freedom (to
avoid confusion). Likewise tomorrow I can't unilateraly decide I
changed my mind and wish to use 200 grams of C4 and it still be called
"freedom" (at least not without agreement from Joe and notification to
Bob)
Otherwise next time someone wants to experience freedom they're
going be plenty unhappy when shit happens.
potr...@gmail.com
"Freedom is defined as 2 grams of C4".
"No you idiot, Freedom is 200 grams of C4."
"Your both evil. Freedom is nuclear weapons."
<Inset more rhetoric and bloody war that could have easily been avoided
with a little less emotion and a little more "outside-the-box" thinking
here>
Real differences...sure. Differences that couldn't a have been resolved
peacefully?
~ Naw.
Malrassic Park
>Real differences...sure. Differences that couldn't a have been resolved
>peacefully?
Without war, how can mankind weed out the weaklings?
potr...@gmail.com
Getting off topic for this thread but eugenics from you Mal? OK... I'll
play along.
Then should we go back to being Trojans and throw our deformed
children off cliffs too? Who decides the criteria for weakling? What
arbitrary threshold defines it? Below 50%?. Below the top 2%?.Or
conveniently wherever one personally stands? And the next generation do
we kill the lowly 98% then too? When does the ridicule and massacre
end? What if it turns out the "weaklings" weren't actually the
weaklings? (Oops I was just kidding)
Big risk you're suggesting especially with nukes proliferating and
space dwindling on this planet.
Dabbling a little in politics (which I generally hate) -- if Bush
does attack Iran (again I'm on the hook for surgical strikes) that will
instantly accelerate the secret nuclear programs of every nation on
earth that feels even slightly threatened by current US policy
(especially Iran). Expect over the next 3-5 years to hear news reports
of successful nuke testing in countries you least want to hear it
from. You don't see the US threatening North Korea or Pakistan with
strikes right? Sure you can beat up the little countries but the big
countries who you really do have to worry about also notice their
interests are being threatened too. Why do you think China is suddenly
dramatically raising military spending? That's the problem when
somebody starts waving guns and rhetoric around instead of sticking to
basic communication. Maybe the 21st century will be about the
Sino-American cold war if we're not careful. The Chinese are a very
proud people. I don't think the US would want a missile crisis showdown
with them. They'd most certainly lose. The Chinese could afford to
lose a billion people and still have hundreds of million manpower. The
US would probably be flattened then quickly recolonized once again by
Asians.
Any how, I honestly don't see what people find so difficult about
not killing. One can make exotic statements like suggesting buying a
Saturn propels the American military industrial complex but really it
just involves personally not pointing some sort of projectile and
pulling the trigger.
Psst.... between me and you Mal.... it actually isn't that tough to do.
~ A=A, B=B, War=War. Peace=Peace
Robert J. Kolker
> "Without war, how can mankind weed out the weaklings? "
>
> Getting off topic for this thread but eugenics from you Mal? OK... I'll
> play along.
>
> Then should we go back to being Trojans and throw our deformed
> children off cliffs too? Who decides the criteria for weakling? What
> arbitrary threshold defines it? Below 50%?. Below the top 2%?.Or
> conveniently wherever one personally stands? And the next generation do
> we kill the lowly 98% then too? When does the ridicule and massacre
> end? What if it turns out the "weaklings" weren't actually the
> weaklings? (Oops I was just kidding)
Acephelics get tossed for sure. They will never be human. Mental retards
might qualify as they never will be very smart. And of course, people
who cannot cope with mathematics. This is the Heinlein criterion.
>
> Big risk you're suggesting especially with nukes proliferating and
> space dwindling on this planet.
There is plenty of space on this planet.
I would rather see the population of earth consist of 10 billion swiss
than 10 billion ugandans.
Reggie Perrin
potr...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> Then should we go back to being Trojans and throw our deformed
> children off cliffs too?
Spartans, surely?
Robert J. Kolker
Spartans indeed. BTW, only males were subject to "rejection" (i.e. being
tossed of a cliff). As a result there was a surplus of Spartan females
who cavorted with each other and did wonderful things to each other's
bodies. In Athens, the men got to puffing and panting over lurid tales
told of the cavortings of Spartan women.
Bob Kolker
Malrassic Park
>"Without war, how can mankind weed out the weaklings? "
.
>Getting off topic for this thread but eugenics from you Mal? OK... I'll
>play along.
.
> Then should we go back to being Trojans and throw our deformed
>children off cliffs too? Who decides the criteria for weakling? What
>arbitrary threshold defines it? Below 50%?. Below the top 2%?.Or
>conveniently wherever one personally stands? And the next generation do
>we kill the lowly 98% then too? When does the ridicule and massacre
>end? What if it turns out the "weaklings" weren't actually the
>weaklings? (Oops I was just kidding)
.
You're turning my response into a matter of personal interest. And it
wasn't about eugenics. It wasn't about defeating the "axis of evil."
It wasn't about nuclear proliferation or any of the other dozen world
events that frighten you.
Malrassic Park
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Reggie Perrin wrote:
>> potr...@gmail.com wrote:
.
>>> Then should we go back to being Trojans and throw our deformed
>>>children off cliffs too?
.
>> Spartans, surely?
.
>Spartans indeed. BTW, only males were subject to "rejection" (i.e. being
>tossed of a cliff). As a result there was a surplus of Spartan females
>who cavorted with each other and did wonderful things to each other's
>bodies. In Athens, the men got to puffing and panting over lurid tales
>told of the cavortings of Spartan women.
Oh yes I forgot about that. And the Spartan men are widely known for
their sodomistic cavortings because of this.
Malrassic Park
>"Without war, how can mankind weed out the weaklings? "
.
>Getting off topic for this thread but eugenics from you Mal? OK... I'll
>play along.
.
> Then should we go back to being Trojans and throw our deformed
>children off cliffs too? Who decides the criteria for weakling? What
>arbitrary threshold defines it? Below 50%?. Below the top 2%?.Or
>conveniently wherever one personally stands? And the next generation do
>we kill the lowly 98% then too? When does the ridicule and massacre
>end? What if it turns out the "weaklings" weren't actually the
>weaklings? (Oops I was just kidding)
.
Warfare itself will take care of all those questions.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Oh yes I forgot about that. And the Spartan men are widely known for
> their sodomistic cavortings because of this.
Homosexual bonding among the Spartan Hoplites was required. Spartan men
diddled women just to produce sons. Their hearts and souls were bound to
there mess mates.
The Spartan women were the freest in the ancient Greek world. In Athens
women were expected to stay at home, have kids, clean the house and not
bother there pretty little heads with philosophy and politics. The
Athenians found the behaviour of Spartan women a tad scandalous and
exciting. In the Athenian upper crust there was considerable
pro-Lacondomanian (Spartan) sentiment, very much like the attraction
Stalin's Commie Paradise had for upper crust parlon pinkos in the west.
There was much apologizing for the extremities of Spartan culture.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
Hmmm... considering my was mom was born not too far from Sparta I
probably should have said that correctly.
Thanks for the correction though.
potr...@gmail.com
It wasn't about eugenics? Then why the holocaust?
"nuclear proliferation or any of the other dozen world events that
frighten you. "
Nukes don't scare you? Then why is everyone so upset about Iran? How
about that cold war thing?
Malrassic Park
>"It wasn't about defeating the "axis of evil."
.
>It wasn't about eugenics? Then why the holocaust?
>"nuclear proliferation or any of the other dozen world events that
>frighten you. "
>Nukes don't scare you? Then why is everyone so upset about Iran? How
>about that cold war thing?
Because my response was not intended to concern your various and
sundry fears.
potr...@gmail.com
"I would rather see the population of earth consist of 10 billion swiss
than 10 billion ugandans."
I "think" I know what your saying but you probably mean you'd rather
see a more civilized people than a less civilized people....because it
makes your life more pleasant.
I believe we all prefer non-violent and productive people but I don't
believe that gives us the moral right to start the executions and
create arbitrary standards for the right to exist.
Again who decides? You? Of course you'd be one of the "good ones"
right?
People slip up with their words and meanings :) so I'm not sure if
you're an actual bigot Mal, but when you state it like that it sure
does come across as a racist statement and incitement to violence. If
you don't believe me-- go to Uganda and tell someone there your
preferences. As far as I can tell Ugandans have just as much right to
exist as anyone else. Hitler probably started off saying he'd prefer
the population of earth to have 6 million Austrians rather million Jews
too.
Someone attacks you? Although I'd personally not fight-- I would
understand violent retribution. Someone is just poorer than you? They
have it tough enough without having to worry about you shooting them
down.
I know this is an Objectivism group so I can understand if you don't
believe in altruism but why is everyone always around here always keen
about finding ways to spend money and kill people-- rather than putting
all that funding into finding ways of making them better? You spend
money on your children... it seems to help them no?
Of course we can't do everything, they must mostly help themselves but
that takes time. I don't mean years either, probably decades if not
centuries of intermingling blood and culture.
War =! peace. Having the ability to kill someone doesn't equate to a
better world. Otherwise Ugandans have a great life.
potr...@gmail.com
"Because my response was not intended to concern your various and
sundry fears. "
I'm not trying to be a smart ass below.... I'm just trying to
understand your response and let you know where I am at. Ok?
(Much like the complaints against me) if you speak in "inside-joke or
obscure" riddles I can't read your thoughts to understand your
references. The way you are now saying things (or I'm perceiving it)
comes across as a patronizing only I have fears and somehow you are
above such trivial matters. Or that perhaps that my fears are trivial
while yours are truly worthy.
Its common for people to use fear to propel them to violence but this
is still usually considered a "negative" thing. I prefer my instincts
to push me into a "positive" things...peace. What's so horrible about
that? Would you really prefer yet one more cutthroat on this earth?
Don't we have enough already? I can assure you no wars have every been
fought because of people like me. I am a truly am a lamb waiting to be
killed by all the alleged righteous people because I wouldn't do it to
anyone for any reason. Not to protect my family (haven't heard that one
before) or even myself. And no...I don't feel this in turn obligates me
to give every last morsel of food from my mouth either,
Spending time devising ways to kill others are precious minutes of
one's life wasted as far as I'm concerned.
Robert J. Kolker
> centuries of intermingling blood and culture.
>
> War =! peace. Having the ability to kill someone doesn't equate to a
> better world. Otherwise Ugandans have a great life.
The Ugandans have been eating each other's livers since the end of
colonialism. They are a wretched people with a wretched culture. They
would be just a wretched if they were all blonde and blue-eyed.
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
Bob,
You believe in individualism right? So I don't need to tell you
Uganda is a COUNTRY filled with individuals. So call it a hunch but
maybe some of them do not eat livers? I generally don't look at things
in terms of nations although I have to use the words when speaking
politics (a subject I find unappealing since it basically about who
should be killed, starved or left destitute)
There are just people scatttered across arbitrary political boundries
I feel no loyality to any nation INCLUDING the one I live in.
If one of those people pisses me off enough, I just ignore them, I even
try to avoid trash talking them. If someone breaks the law honestly I
don't spend time worryng about it unless it affects my family. It's
government's job to care about that. If someone helps me out, I
appreciate it because no one owes me squat so I try to help them out
too. I even try to slip in a little altruism here and there.
So I'm clearly not prepared to dump every Ugandan into the Hannibal
bucket, just like I'm not prepared to do that to any individual on this
planet.
Incidentally I consider you a very clever and well read fella (not
always right of course because only I am that). This isn't a
criticism-- I'm just curious. You have a habit of focusing a great deal
on the monsterous aspects of humanity. There's plenty of good stuff
everywhere too. What drives you to always point to the "negative" or
"shocking"? Been eating hot sause too long and it's dulled your taste
buds? I personally prefer to mix it up and talk about silly things like
cute kittens and puppies occasionally. Or cuddle with my spouse.
Is there a warm spot in Bob somewhere still? You probably don't care at
all what I think but I wouldn't be here if I didn't care what you
think. This is probably too much to ask but could you perhaps give a
peek at the warm fuzzy side of Bob (if it exists). All of you were kids
once, so part of that must be buried in there somewhere.
Malrassic Park
.
>"Because my response was not intended to concern your various and
>sundry fears. "
.
>I'm not trying to be a smart ass below.... I'm just trying to
>understand your response and let you know where I am at. Ok?
.
>(Much like the complaints against me) if you speak in "inside-joke or
>obscure" riddles I can't read your thoughts to understand your
>references. The way you are now saying things (or I'm perceiving it)
>comes across as a patronizing only I have fears and somehow you are
>above such trivial matters. Or that perhaps that my fears are trivial
>while yours are truly worthy.
.
Once again, you are turning this into a personal matter. All I am
saying is that warfare weeds out the weaklings.
.
> Its common for people to use fear to propel them to violence but this
>is still usually considered a "negative" thing. I prefer my instincts
>to push me into a "positive" things...peace. What's so horrible about
>that?
.
Did I say peace was horrible?
>Would you really prefer yet one more cutthroat on this earth?
>Don't we have enough already? I can assure you no wars have every been
>fought because of people like me. I am a truly am a lamb waiting to be
>killed by all the alleged righteous people because I wouldn't do it to
>anyone for any reason. Not to protect my family (haven't heard that one
>before) or even myself. And no...I don't feel this in turn obligates me
>to give every last morsel of food from my mouth either,
.
> Spending time devising ways to kill others are precious minutes of
>one's life wasted as far as I'm concerned.
But if you're part of the military-industrial complex you can make big
money. Big big money.
Robert J. Kolker
> Is there a warm spot in Bob somewhere still? You probably don't care at
> all what I think but I wouldn't be here if I didn't care what you
> think. This is probably too much to ask but could you perhaps give a
> peek at the warm fuzzy side of Bob (if it exists). All of you were kids
> once, so part of that must be buried in there somewhere.
I love my family. There is were I am warm and fuzzy. I have no concern
for Ugandans. Since the Ugandans are no threat to me or mine, I have no
desire to hurt Ugandans. I also have no desire to help Ugandans since it
would not profit me or mine to do so.
If feel no compulsion, moral or economic to help the lamed, the maimed,
the stupid or the miserable of the world. Their troubles are theirs, my
troubles are mine. What am I to them or they to me?
Bob Kolker
potr...@gmail.com
"Once again, you are turning this into a personal matter."
If it comes across that way--sorry. My tone is even on this end.
-----------
Did I say peace was horrible?
-----------
Then stop defending the machinery of warfare. You think those things
are for building bridges?
---------
"But if you're part of the military-industrial complex you can make big
money. Big big money. "
---------
Individuals can most definitely capitalize but modern nations with
nukes? I'm no economist but I suspect the Austrian school of "The
Parable of the Broken Window" kinda money eventually.
Before I get razzed, I'm not talking any current political situation
today or any particular nation. If we (humanity) continue to play with
firecrackers we are eventually going to get burnt. It's doesn't take
elliptical curve cryptography to do the math. It's an absolute
certainty if the chance is greater than zero given enough time it
happens. Nobody on this planet should be arguing that with me on this.
Argue with our sense of mathematical logic if you wish.
Short of an unexpected celestial event--we probably can survive
anything nature can throw at us at this point. So our only real threat
is each other. (Hell for all I know maybe that's what's causing those
gamma bursts and why SETI has had no luck.)
And the ONLY way I know to change that equation is to set a goal of
eventually making the chance nil. So (practicing what I preach) I
unilaterally vow to never kill any of you for any reason.... next?
~ If I was only skilled enough to convince 5-6 billion people of the
imperative of this simple truth
potr...@gmail.com
"I love my family"
------------
The word "love" from Bob's mouth? Wonderful. Really I mean that with
zero sarcasm. Thanks for sharing that.
------------
"I feel no compulsion, moral or economic to help the lamed, the maimed,
the stupid or the miserable of the world."
------------
Do you feel a compulsion to be altruistic to the stronger, happier and
the more intelligent? It seems someone can meet all those criteria but
can have a negative effect to you and your family no?
Why do you feel you must single out the unfortunate in that formula?
potr...@gmail.com
re-enforced something in my mind that I've been dwelling on for awhile.
(If you look at my posting dates and comments, I think you can easily
confirm I really do dwell on things. :) NONE OF THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS
CRITICISM.
When I first came to this forum this is basically how I experienced
you......."KILL MAIM RAPE, MURDER, BOMB, NUKE, COMMIES, EVIL..... you
get the picure. You never let up and I really was quite horrified. I
may sometimes get upset but judgment is not really in my nature
though-- so over the years even if I didn't post, I'd take a peek into
your posts once and awhile, It really is quite astonishing. If someone
says "cute little bunnies" you generally find some way to covert that
into "christian propaganda meant to wipe out the jews". You are one
tough cookie. (not intended as a compliment or derogatory either)
People in Uganda <or whatever> may be poorer or richer than Bob but
they really are very much like him. I don't see them giving charity to
Bob and they sure as hell would kill Bob if he did something "bad". So
getting back to the communication issue with which this thread began.
The problems occur when proud and decent Bob is put in a room with
proud and decent <insertsomeonehere>. Aftter short order they start
telling each other how they would kill each other and all their
relatives, rather than talk about how they might work together to
mutual benefit. The war of words and moral oneupmanship begins and
eventually the tanks roll in as well.
For what purpose did this occur? Did either side really care the other
was stupid or poor? Was this done for some altruistic reason like
spreading freedom? Of course not. This happened because both sides only
saw death. How could they not since those are the only words each side
said to one another?
Getting to the moral of the story.
I'm just one more dude somewhere on the Internet with one more
opinion of "how it is". My opinion is sincere though, and is not
something that was rushed out as some sort of 'see-I'm-smart" or
"I'm-better-than-you" reply. I am simply saying here is my authentic
perception and opinion do what you wish with it from here. In no way,
am I suggesting that I am somehow better or even that it is in fact
"great advice". It is only my advice (which very well may be garbage).
Bob you need to move away from "KILL KILL KILL" because it confuses
people as to the nature of your decency. Typical people are just not
used to communicating in that fashion and it generates hostility
towards you and your causes. This doesn't mean you should change your
values or goals only the way you go about communicating them. I believe
it will serve you better in life.
Potroast.
.