Certainly. This is quite problematic for anyone who believes that emotions are means rather than ends.
You say: "The man who points a gun at you is a man telling you not to think. He tells you to sacrifice your mind for your fear. I seek to disappoint such men."
It sounds like you have some preconceptions as to the reasons someone would pull a gun. Such preconceptions sound like they are predetermining your intent prior to being in a situation with a gun facing you so that at the time you might be predisposed to act in a programmed way. If you lean towards such a predisposition, aren't you preplanning to give your logical thought processes to this theoretical person in advance?
When we believe that our assessment of the intentions of another is the same as their actual intentions, that's considered being egocentric in psychological terms. It is considered not having a realistic appraisal of the situation before us. If we cannot realistically appraise a situation in advance because we do no know the variables, how can we plan responding rationally and logically? I would think the only way is to clear the mind of such preconceptions, prejudgments, predeterminations and bias.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You say: "The man who points a gun at you is a man telling you not to think. He tells you to sacrifice your mind for your fear. I seek to disappoint such men."
It sounds like you have some preconceptions as to the reasons someone would pull a gun.
Every person who pulls a gun on you and makes a demand has one reason in doing so: he wishes to replace your mind with his gun.
Such preconceptions sound like they are predetermining your intent prior to being in a situation with a gun facing you so that at the time you might be predisposed to act in a programmed way. If you lean towards such a predisposition, aren't you preplanning to give your logical thought processes to this theoretical person in advance?
Not at all. What predisposition towards a course of action do I have?
When we believe that our assessment of the intentions of another is the same as their actual intentions, that's considered being egocentric in psychological terms.
What if we're right?
It is considered not having a realistic appraisal of the situation before us.
Unless we're right.
If we cannot realistically appraise a situation in advance because we do no know the variables, how can we plan responding rationally and logically?
The variables in your equation are quite simple.
I would think the only way is to clear the mind of such preconceptions, prejudgments, predeterminations and bias.
Would you wait until the moment a man pulls a gun on you to ask the question "what's a gun"?
Every person who pulls a gun on you and makes a demand has one reason in doing so: he wishes to replace your mind with his gun.
Like I say: preconception
Not at all. What predisposition towards a course of action do I have?
You have your one motive assigned to any type of gun pulling--that is prejudice. You have in advance objectified that human being, which essentially assures you will not see the human being before you if you find yourself in such a situation. Therefore, you will not respond to the situation, but to the idea you are conditioning yourself to "guard" against. It sounds to me that this idea is your own personal boogie man.
What if we're right?
Unless we're right.
The variables in your equation are quite simple.
It sounds like you are quite tunnel-visioned here. That's your option. Acting from a narrow-minded perspective of being "right" in a prejudged manner is not my favourite option. I definitely don't consider it a valid one in advance, when I am able to think through possibilites and potentialities. I generally consider it a poor option when caught off guard by unseen possibilities to make my decisions based on prejudgments for that matter.
Would you wait until the moment a man pulls a gun on you to ask the question "what's a gun"?
The problem is we are not talking about "what is a gun". We are talking about potentially killing or maiming another human being. I would think you would want to make such an important decision based on information you were being informed with at the time, rather than through the lens of "boogie man" that you imagine based on who-knows-what.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ok. Now can you tell me how this preconception would be wrong?
You have your one motive assigned to any type of gun pulling--that is prejudice.
It would only be prejudice if there was another type of gun pulling.
You have in advance objectified that human being, which essentially assures you will not see the human being before you if you find yourself in such a situation.
A gun on a table has no will behind it.
Therefore, you will not respond to the situation, but to the idea you are conditioning yourself to "guard" against. It sounds to me that this idea is your own personal boogie man.
The idea of men with guns? It's certainly not a "boogie man" if you mean that it's something I fear and irrationally attempt to ward off.
It sounds like you are quite tunnel-visioned here. That's your option. Acting from a narrow-minded perspective of being "right" in a prejudged manner is not my favourite option. I definitely don't consider it a valid one in advance, when I am able to think through possibilites and potentialities. I generally consider it a poor option when caught off guard by unseen possibilities to make my decisions based on prejudgments for that matter.
Can you explain the mountain that I'm missing while I'm focusing on a tunnel?
The problem is we are not talking about "what is a gun".
Sounds like you have your own "bias" and "preconception".
We are talking about potentially killing or maiming another human being.
Yes we are.
I would think you would want to make such an important decision based on information you were being informed with at the time, rather than through the lens of "boogie man" that you imagine based on who-knows-what.
But I know it now and I'll know it at the time. Are you suggesting that I could be wrong?
Ok. Now can you tell me how this preconception would be wrong?
It would only be prejudice if there was another type of gun pulling.
You have prejudged a situation that has not yet happened. Therefore you are theoretically willing to act on a prejudgment. Prejudgment is prejudgment. It's not about accurately assessing the situation as it arises. It's about ingraining those grooves in your mind so that when the time arises, you act as programmed. If you are comfortable with that, there's not much I can say.
The idea of men with guns? It's certainly not a "boogie man" if you mean that it's something I fear and irrationally attempt to ward off.
These so-called men with guns are a figment of your imagination right now. You obviously fear them enough to prepare yourself to kill them. That they are products of your own thought processes and emotions. You have conjured up a stereotype of "men with guns" and this illusion, laced with your fear has you well-prepared to meet with said stereotype. Unfortunately real humans in the world are not just illusions of an ego-centric mindset.
Can you explain the mountain that I'm missing while I'm focusing on a tunnel?
If you don't see that dehumanising people you've not yet met is a bit of a mountain, I'm not sure I can help. If you don't understand that such dehumanisation and stereotypes can actually create that which you fear, I again and not sure I can help.
Sounds like you have your own "bias" and "preconception".
For sure. I'm big on not dehumanising people to fit my biases and preconceptions. I dislike being objectified, and reduced to a cartoon version of a person, so I choose not to do it to others if at all possible.
Yes we are.
If you get this, I think you would acknowledge the validity of what I'm saying.
But I know it now and I'll know it at the time. Are you suggesting that I could be wrong?
Again, if you don't see that viewing a person as a 2-d caricature version of a person culled from your imagination, rather than who they are, I don't think there is much more I can add.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You have prejudged a situation that has not yet happened. Therefore you are theoretically willing to act on a prejudgment.
I also own an umbrella. Got a problem with that?
Prejudgment is prejudgment. It's not about accurately assessing the situation as it arises.
But what if your prejudgment is accurate?
It's about ingraining those grooves in your mind so that when the time arises, you act as programmed. If you are comfortable with that, there's not much I can say.
I'm comfortable with that when such a prejudgment is always accurate.
These so-called men with guns are a figment of your imagination right now.
In the context we're discussing, yes.
You obviously fear them enough to prepare yourself to kill them.
Who said anything about killing them?
That they are products of your own thought processes and emotions. You have conjured up a stereotype of "men with guns" and this illusion, laced with your fear has you well-prepared to meet with said stereotype. Unfortunately real humans in the world are not just illusions of an ego-centric mindset.
Would you say that a presumption that "men with guns" are men holding guns is a "stereotype" in any kind of negative sense?
If you don't see that dehumanising people you've not yet met is a bit of a mountain, I'm not sure I can help.
Who said anything about dehumanising? What about my statements denies any human element?
If you don't understand that such dehumanisation and stereotypes can actually create that which you fear, I again and not sure I can help.
Thankfully I'm doing neither.
For sure. I'm big on not dehumanising people to fit my biases and preconceptions. I dislike being objectified, and reduced to a cartoon version of a person, so I choose not to do it to others if at all possible.
Cool.
If you get this, I think you would acknowledge the validity of what I'm saying.
I completely get the validity of what you're saying. You're simply applying it to the wrong side of the equation.
Again, if you don't see that viewing a person as a 2-d caricature version of a person culled from your imagination, rather than who they are, I don't think there is much more I can add.
I'm comfortable with that when such a prejudgment is always accurate.
Then hopefully this is one life lesson you learn in ways that don't entail taking the life of another. You clearly have your mind made up, so I'll save my breath.
I completely get the validity of what you're saying. You're simply applying it to the wrong side of the equation.
It makes a lot of sense, though that you seem to have that "glitch" in that you can't get past the "gun to your head" thing. It's all just a little too ironic for me looking in from the outside. Apparently you don't get the irony.
You are familiar with the idea that we naturally justify our own behaviours but villify others for the same behaviour, right? For example, those who come after you with a gun will most likely not be Uncle Sam or El Kabong. It's more likely to be someone whose been stripped by society in a real sense.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Then hopefully this is one life lesson you learn in ways that don't entail taking the life of another. You clearly have your mind made up, so I'll save my breath.
All I have my mind made up about is found in this statement:
"Every person who pulls a gun on you and makes a demand has one reason in doing so: he wishes to replace your mind with his gun."
For some reason you seem to think that I have my mind made up about killing someone.
It makes a lot of sense, though that you seem to have that "glitch" in that you can't get past the "gun to your head" thing.
Is it me that can't get past this? Remember how this conversation started???
"You are willing to kill someone to ensure that, no?" --Angelica "Such a thing is never necessary." --FFG
"I'm thinking that's why you carry a gun--to keep what is 'yours'. " --Angelica
"I will defend my life against force. I will not use force to achieve my life. Do you understand the difference?" --FFG
It's all just a little too ironic for me looking in from the outside. Apparently you don't get the irony.
I certainly get the irony you see.
You are familiar with the idea that we naturally justify our own behaviours but villify others for the same behaviour, right?
Certainly.
For example, those who come after you with a gun will most likely not be Uncle Sam or El Kabong.
Yet Uncle Sam is the only one who has come after me with a gun.
It's more likely to be someone whose been stripped by society in a real sense.
That's what we were discussing. And that's the least likely.
"Have you had a gun pulled on you face to face?" -- Angelica
"Yes, but not really in the way you mean" -- FFG
All I have my mind made up about is found in this statement:
"Every person who pulls a gun on you and makes a demand has one reason in doing so: he wishes to replace your mind with his gun."
For some reason you seem to think that I have my mind made up about killing someone.
Oh, you misunderstand. I don't think you have your mind made up that you will kill someone. I think you have your mind made up that "EVERY PERSON who pulls a gun..." or "The man who points a gun at you ....". The rest of the preconception follows.
Is it me that can't get past this? Remember how this conversation started???
I'm talking about the idea that you have a gun to your head by those who "force" you to pay taxes and follow laws, etc. I'm saying that when you're walking around ready to use a gun against a figment of your imagination, it's not a wonder that you have a haunting sense of having a gun to your head when it does not actually exist. Unless.... (see next comment)
Yet Uncle Sam is the only one who has come after me with a gun.
This is one story I love to hear! It might clear up a thing or two.
That's what we were discussing. And that's the least likely.
In the world of the stereotypes, yes!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Oh, you misunderstand. I don't think you have your mind made up that you will kill someone. I think you have your mind made up that "EVERY PERSON who pulls a gun..." or "The man who points a gun at you ....". The rest of the preconception follows.
Ok, cool. Now, would you consider the following a preconception in any negative sense?
"Every person who holds a gun on you and makes a demand is a person holding a gun on you and is making a demand"
I'm talking about the idea that you have a gun to your head by those who "force" you to pay taxes and follow laws, etc.
Are you suggesting that they would not "force" me with their guns if my will was the opposite of their purpose?
I'm saying that when you're walking around ready to use a gun against a figment of your imagination
I would never attempt to shoot a figment of my imagination.
it's not a wonder that you have a haunting sense of having a gun to your head when it does not actually exist. Unless.... (see next comment)
This is one story I love to hear! It might clear up a thing or two.
I've been physically arrested three times in my life. Each time against my will. Each time physically restrained. Each time with a very literal gun pointed at me. Each time the result of actions that did not harm a single human being but rather simply went against what the laws of the state or the perceptions of an office mandated.
Regardless, however, one need only to listen to lawmakers to understand that their guns most certainly are the second half to the following statement:
Ok, cool. Now, would you consider the following a preconception in any negative sense?
"Every person who holds a gun on you and makes a demand is a person holding a gun on you and is making a demand"
Are you suggesting that they would not "force" me with their guns if my will was the opposite of their purpose?
I would never attempt to shoot a figment of my imagination.
Is it safe for me to assume you've not seen the movie "What the bleep do we know"? They depict the way we all "shoot figments of our imagination" all the time. I well know this from experience.
I've been physically arrested three times in my life. Each time against my will. Each time physically restrained. Each time with a very literal gun pointed at me. Each time the result of actions that did not harm a single human being but rather simply went against what the laws of the state or the perceptions of an office mandated.
Regardless, however, one need only to listen to lawmakers to understand that their guns most certainly are the second half to the following statement:
"Do this, or else"
I can't judge this stuff. It does clarify some of your gun-to-the-head stances. I can see that your idea of the person with the gun to your head is probably different than my idea. So you carry a gun to use against the police?? I'm not sure I would condone that! Especially since you seem to find yourself arrested at gunpoint more often than I am!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Is it safe for me to assume you've not seen the movie "What the bleep do we know"? They depict the way we all "shoot figments of our imagination" all the time. I well know this from experience.
I haven't seen the film. Can you provide me an example of what I'm shooting?
I haven't seen the film. Can you provide me an example of what I'm shooting?
I don't want to mess up the movie for you. It's a good one. Basically, the movie depicts how our preconceived notions have us believing life is one way, when the reality is very different. I'm sure you've noticed this on this board where, for example, someone obviously misunderstands you and has you demonised as something you are not. Then they give themselves permission to treat you the way they see you. It's a way of "shooting a figment of the imagination". The problem is that the consequences of how you are treated when people misunderstand you is very real to you and yet it is all about them.
Certainly not.
I would hope not! I had all these questions lined up for you such as: When you jump off of high cliffs, do you imagine that this time, gravity will not cause immense pain...
Then who would you envision needing the gun against?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I've heard this once:
"The difference between communists and capitalists is simple:
Comunists eat children at breakfast.
Capitalists eat children's breakfast."
And then you have China: a communist government that learned how to make capitalism work in it's best interest (is that twisted, or what?). "Do the Evolution, baby!..."
In the end, both systems think in people as numbers, sheep, disposable busy bees.
By the way: a beautifull movie (one of my favorites) about love and coping with changes.
But in the begining, it just rapidly transfers all control to the corrupt state. Capitalism accomplishes the same thing, but much slower. Either way, we be screwed.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Capitalism does not put profit before and above people. INor does it kill the planet or do any of the other things you ascribe to it.
Capitalism does allow a person to use their own morals in running their own business. If the person has no connection with his/her community the they may run it in a greedy way. On the other hand if the business owner is compassionate then that too will reflect in the business. Just look at some of the amazing work that Gates is doing.
As far as the environment goes communism was by far the worst. They had no reason to improve as they had no competition. Communism has been the favored form of economy for most dictators.
It always puzzles me that it seems to be the people who complain the most and loudest about the government also sing the praises of a government run economy.
I'm not singing the praises of anything here...but doesn't Bill Gates ability to do good rely on the fact that he has nearly unlimited power and can "afford" to do good as a result of this power. Secondly isn't he rich off the backs of the poor? So how much "good" does he have to do to make up for his bullshit?
I'm not singing the praises of anything here...but doesn't Bill Gates ability to do good rely on the fact that he has nearly unlimited power and can "afford" to do good as a result of this power. Secondly isn't he rich off the backs of the poor? So how much "good" does he have to do to make up for his bullshit?
I'm not singing the praises of anything here...but doesn't Eddie Vedder's ability to do good rely on the fact that he has nearly unlimited power and can "afford" to do good as a result of this power. Secondly isn't he rich off the backs of the poor? So how much "good" does he have to do to make up for his bullshit?
Personally I think that is complete bullshit on both counts, but I don't see the difference between the two. Gates is also leaving MSFT in 2008 and dedicating himself to charitable giving full time.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I'm not singing the praises of anything here...but doesn't Bill Gates ability to do good rely on the fact that he has nearly unlimited power and can "afford" to do good as a result of this power. Secondly isn't he rich off the backs of the poor? So how much "good" does he have to do to make up for his bullshit?
Gates has near unlimited money but not power.
I'd like to see you realistically justify the "isn't he rich off the backs of the poor" statement. Microsoft pays well. Microsoft overpays for most of the companies they buy. Microsoft has a good record of keeping jobs in the US. His goods are not a necessity so no one is forced to buy his product.
Take a look at Pearl Jam. If they had worked and found a way to deal with fame they could have continued to be a relevant, popular and high selling band. This would have employed more people and given the band the ability to earn more money and give more to charity. The band decides they can't put up with the fame and would rather not do all the good that they could with the fame. I'll use your question here, "So how much "good" does Pearl Jam have to do to make up for their bullshit?"
This sitting in judgement gets old so quick. Gates does more charity work than you or I ever will, and gives more to charity than you or I ever will. He does more wealth distribution than you or I ever will. He has contributed more to paying for your and mine old age or social security than you or I ever will.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I'd like to see you realistically justify the "isn't he rich off the backs of the poor" statement. Microsoft pays well. Microsoft overpays for most of the companies they buy. Microsoft has a good record of keeping jobs in the US. His goods are not a necessity so no one is forced to buy his product.
Take a look at Pearl Jam. If they had worked and found a way to deal with fame they could have continued to be a relevant, popular and high selling band. This would have employed more people and given the band the ability to earn more money and give more to charity. The band decides they can't put up with the fame and would rather not do all the good that they could with the fame. I'll use your question here, "So how much "good" does Pearl Jam have to do to make up for their bullshit?"
This sitting in judgement gets old so quick. Gates does more charity work than you or I ever will, and gives more to charity than you or I ever will. He does more wealth distribution than you or I ever will. He has contributed more to paying for your and mine old age or social security than you or I ever will.
I don't like the way Bill Gates won his fortune. It's actually illegal to do now. I'm not sure if he knew exactly what he was doing. The TV movie "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" portrays both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as young punks that screw everyone around. However Bill Gates does do a lot of good now. He seems like an alright guy. As much as I want to hate him for his wealth. I fear there are people with a lot more. None of the bank owners share that information. You have to assume they have a lot of money. By means that are far more unethical than what Bill did.
Microsoft is an evil corporation. Legal, but evil. I wouldn't doubt if they had a new xBox just waiting for PS3 to come out. Something that is totally backwards compatible and incorporates Sony's Cell Technology. That's the kind of stuff Microsoft did to Apple, Netscape and OS/2 Warp. Microsoft worked in conjunction with Apple to develope the first Apple GUI. Then released Windows (far superior) immediately after using Apple's technology. Microsoft leased the rights to windows source to OS/2, right after they released their OS (far superior to windows), Microsoft released Windows 95 (far superior to OS/2 Warp). With Netscape they just duplicated it almost exactly and included it with Windows distribution. They continue to do this, indefinately, expanding into other markets and capitalizing on something that in many places would be free. Software used to be all shareware, while the production quality wasn't that good. Bill Gates bought DOS from some home programmer for $50,000 that he didn't have, he sold DOS (which he didn't have) to IBM and used the money to buy DOS. I think Bill is a smart business man, but his company is evil.
The real evil people are the ones that don't tell you how much they have. They don't talk about thing their personal lives. They are secretive. I'll tell you I make $14/hr 40hr/week. It works out to about $830/pay. Why should I hide it? What if I had 25% of the entire worlds wealth? Would I want to hide it then? Especially if I owned a bank? We don't have to worry about the Walton's or the Gates. Inflation is caused by a fractional reserve system. We all need islamic banks or a full-reserve banking system.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not saying bad guys win (always or otherwise).
I'm saying people get what they ask for.
Really? I dont think they do, most of the time. Not to mention that "people" never agree among themselves on what they want to ask for...
I know you want to dress your opposition against all collective-slanted thinking up in a=a inevitabilities. Just say you dont like it. You are allowed to. You are also allowed to agree with an ideology. Just say so in plain words. A lot of the time, your replies makes no sense, without the background of anarchist capitalist thought which you believe in. I get this background through our lengthy debates, and filter your replies through that to gleam the meaning. Not everyone does. I think you could save yourself a lot of replying later on by just coming clean at the get-go.
As for the debate at large and related, I'll say this. The problem of communism is that it requires a society made up of communists as a prerequisite. Equally, the problem of anarchic capitalism is that it requires a society of anarchists as a prerequisite to work. Society is not made up of either, but of a mix of the two and a lot of other groups in between. An adherence to any of the extremes, will go against a large groups interpretation of reality and wishes for society. A compromise keeping all parties slightly annoyed is still the best way as I see it.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Can you provide me an example of what I'm shooting?
How are people meant to make sense out of that? I mean you're shooting at imaginative things now apparently. I feel like I've been reading through one of those sites which has a list of silly quotes. Now would you mind breaking from the bullshit for 30 seconds and say exactly where you're coming from?
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
I mean you're shooting at imaginative things now apparently.
Did you miss this:
"I would never attempt to shoot a figment of my imagination." --FFG
I feel like I've been reading through one of those sites which has a list of silly quotes. Now would you mind breaking from the bullshit for 30 seconds and say exactly where you're coming from?
What do you mean? I've stated my position quite clearly. Summarized, it reads as this:
I will not abdicate my power to think in the face of a gun. Nor will I expect or ask another to do so.
If you have any specific questions, just ask. But don't expect a specific answer to a generic question like "where are you coming from".
Really? I dont think they do, most of the time. Not to mention that "people" never agree among themselves on what they want to ask for...
Very true.
I know you want to dress your opposition against all collective-slanted thinking up in a=a inevitabilities. Just say you dont like it.
It's not a matter of liking it. It's a matter of living by it.
You are allowed to. You are also allowed to agree with an ideology. Just say so in plain words. A lot of the time, your replies makes no sense, without the background of anarchist capitalist thought which you believe in. I get this background through our lengthy debates, and filter your replies through that to gleam the meaning. Not everyone does. I think you could save yourself a lot of replying later on by just coming clean at the get-go.
I'm not a salesperson.
As for the debate at large and related, I'll say this. The problem of communism is that it requires a society made up of communists as a prerequisite.
Sure.
Equally, the problem of anarchic capitalism is that it requires a society of anarchists as a prerequisite to work.
Not true at all. I could care less if my neighbor is a communist. Unfortunately, my neighbor doesn't hold the same opinion. Do you understand why?
Society is not made up of either, but of a mix of the two and a lot of other groups in between. An adherence to any of the extremes, will go against a large groups interpretation of reality and wishes for society. A compromise keeping all parties slightly annoyed is still the best way as I see it.
What about those of us who have no "wishes for society"?
"I would never attempt to shoot a figment of my imagination." --FFG
What do you mean? I've stated my position quite clearly. Summarized, it reads as this:
I will not abdicate my power to think in the face of a gun. Nor will I expect or ask another to do so.
If you have any specific questions, just ask. But don't expect a specific answer to a generic question like "where are you coming from".
Right well... that clears that up
The Astoria??? Orgazmic!
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Not true at all. I could care less if my neighbor is a communist. Unfortunately, my neighbor doesn't hold the same opinion. Do you understand why?
the phrase is couldn't care less
by saying you 'could care less' shows that you do actually have a modicum of care about the scenario, a scenario in which you are trying to highlight you have no care... so grammatically speaking its couldn't care less.. thank you
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
No, but you are making points about politics and other stuff, and want us to see it the same way. (if not, why bother posting?) It would help to get your meaning across then wouldn't it? You just seem to dense things up more than strictly necessary.
Not true at all. I could care less if my neighbor is a communist. Unfortunately, my neighbor doesn't hold the same opinion. Do you understand why?
Exactly. Your neighbour isn't necessarily an anarchist. You got my point. As for what your neighbour holds of opnions, I would not venture a guess as to why, as I dont know your neighbour.
What about those of us who have no "wishes for society"?
Afraid this is one of those things where no opinions IS an opinion in itself. You want an anarchist society where you can be left alone and people mind their own business. There is your wish for society. Others have other wishes for how society should be ordered.
Anarchist capitalism would work brilliantly among entrepeneurial anarchists, and be a nightmare for people more oriented towards safety and predictability.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
by saying you 'could care less' shows that you do actually have a modicum of care about the scenario, a scenario in which you are trying to highlight you have no care... so grammatically speaking its couldn't care less.. thank you
Comments
You say: "The man who points a gun at you is a man telling you not to think. He tells you to sacrifice your mind for your fear. I seek to disappoint such men."
It sounds like you have some preconceptions as to the reasons someone would pull a gun. Such preconceptions sound like they are predetermining your intent prior to being in a situation with a gun facing you so that at the time you might be predisposed to act in a programmed way. If you lean towards such a predisposition, aren't you preplanning to give your logical thought processes to this theoretical person in advance?
When we believe that our assessment of the intentions of another is the same as their actual intentions, that's considered being egocentric in psychological terms. It is considered not having a realistic appraisal of the situation before us. If we cannot realistically appraise a situation in advance because we do no know the variables, how can we plan responding rationally and logically? I would think the only way is to clear the mind of such preconceptions, prejudgments, predeterminations and bias.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Every person who pulls a gun on you and makes a demand has one reason in doing so: he wishes to replace your mind with his gun.
Not at all. What predisposition towards a course of action do I have?
What if we're right?
Unless we're right.
The variables in your equation are quite simple.
Would you wait until the moment a man pulls a gun on you to ask the question "what's a gun"?
You have your one motive assigned to any type of gun pulling--that is prejudice. You have in advance objectified that human being, which essentially assures you will not see the human being before you if you find yourself in such a situation. Therefore, you will not respond to the situation, but to the idea you are conditioning yourself to "guard" against. It sounds to me that this idea is your own personal boogie man.
It sounds like you are quite tunnel-visioned here. That's your option. Acting from a narrow-minded perspective of being "right" in a prejudged manner is not my favourite option. I definitely don't consider it a valid one in advance, when I am able to think through possibilites and potentialities. I generally consider it a poor option when caught off guard by unseen possibilities to make my decisions based on prejudgments for that matter.
The problem is we are not talking about "what is a gun". We are talking about potentially killing or maiming another human being. I would think you would want to make such an important decision based on information you were being informed with at the time, rather than through the lens of "boogie man" that you imagine based on who-knows-what.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok. Now can you tell me how this preconception would be wrong?
It would only be prejudice if there was another type of gun pulling.
A gun on a table has no will behind it.
The idea of men with guns? It's certainly not a "boogie man" if you mean that it's something I fear and irrationally attempt to ward off.
Can you explain the mountain that I'm missing while I'm focusing on a tunnel?
Sounds like you have your own "bias" and "preconception".
Yes we are.
But I know it now and I'll know it at the time. Are you suggesting that I could be wrong?
These so-called men with guns are a figment of your imagination right now. You obviously fear them enough to prepare yourself to kill them. That they are products of your own thought processes and emotions. You have conjured up a stereotype of "men with guns" and this illusion, laced with your fear has you well-prepared to meet with said stereotype. Unfortunately real humans in the world are not just illusions of an ego-centric mindset.
If you don't see that dehumanising people you've not yet met is a bit of a mountain, I'm not sure I can help. If you don't understand that such dehumanisation and stereotypes can actually create that which you fear, I again and not sure I can help.
For sure. I'm big on not dehumanising people to fit my biases and preconceptions. I dislike being objectified, and reduced to a cartoon version of a person, so I choose not to do it to others if at all possible.
If you get this, I think you would acknowledge the validity of what I'm saying.
Again, if you don't see that viewing a person as a 2-d caricature version of a person culled from your imagination, rather than who they are, I don't think there is much more I can add.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I also own an umbrella. Got a problem with that?
But what if your prejudgment is accurate?
I'm comfortable with that when such a prejudgment is always accurate.
In the context we're discussing, yes.
Who said anything about killing them?
Would you say that a presumption that "men with guns" are men holding guns is a "stereotype" in any kind of negative sense?
Who said anything about dehumanising? What about my statements denies any human element?
Thankfully I'm doing neither.
Cool.
I completely get the validity of what you're saying. You're simply applying it to the wrong side of the equation.
Ok, that's cool.
It makes a lot of sense, though that you seem to have that "glitch" in that you can't get past the "gun to your head" thing. It's all just a little too ironic for me looking in from the outside. Apparently you don't get the irony.
You are familiar with the idea that we naturally justify our own behaviours but villify others for the same behaviour, right? For example, those who come after you with a gun will most likely not be Uncle Sam or El Kabong. It's more likely to be someone whose been stripped by society in a real sense.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
All I have my mind made up about is found in this statement:
"Every person who pulls a gun on you and makes a demand has one reason in doing so: he wishes to replace your mind with his gun."
For some reason you seem to think that I have my mind made up about killing someone.
Is it me that can't get past this? Remember how this conversation started???
"You are willing to kill someone to ensure that, no?" --Angelica
"Such a thing is never necessary." --FFG
"I'm thinking that's why you carry a gun--to keep what is 'yours'. " --Angelica
"I will defend my life against force. I will not use force to achieve my life. Do you understand the difference?" --FFG
I certainly get the irony you see.
Certainly.
Yet Uncle Sam is the only one who has come after me with a gun.
That's what we were discussing. And that's the least likely.
"Have you had a gun pulled on you face to face?" -- Angelica
"Yes, but not really in the way you mean" -- FFG
I'm talking about the idea that you have a gun to your head by those who "force" you to pay taxes and follow laws, etc. I'm saying that when you're walking around ready to use a gun against a figment of your imagination, it's not a wonder that you have a haunting sense of having a gun to your head when it does not actually exist. Unless.... (see next comment)
This is one story I love to hear! It might clear up a thing or two.
In the world of the stereotypes, yes!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ok, cool. Now, would you consider the following a preconception in any negative sense?
"Every person who holds a gun on you and makes a demand is a person holding a gun on you and is making a demand"
Are you suggesting that they would not "force" me with their guns if my will was the opposite of their purpose?
I would never attempt to shoot a figment of my imagination.
I've been physically arrested three times in my life. Each time against my will. Each time physically restrained. Each time with a very literal gun pointed at me. Each time the result of actions that did not harm a single human being but rather simply went against what the laws of the state or the perceptions of an office mandated.
Regardless, however, one need only to listen to lawmakers to understand that their guns most certainly are the second half to the following statement:
"Do this, or else"
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
www.bebo.com/pearljam06
I can't judge this stuff. It does clarify some of your gun-to-the-head stances. I can see that your idea of the person with the gun to your head is probably different than my idea. So you carry a gun to use against the police?? I'm not sure I would condone that! Especially since you seem to find yourself arrested at gunpoint more often than I am!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I haven't seen the film. Can you provide me an example of what I'm shooting?
Certainly not.
Then who would you envision needing the gun against?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The man who tells me that my death can achieve his life.
"The difference between communists and capitalists is simple:
Comunists eat children at breakfast.
Capitalists eat children's breakfast."
And then you have China: a communist government that learned how to make capitalism work in it's best interest (is that twisted, or what?). "Do the Evolution, baby!..."
In the end, both systems think in people as numbers, sheep, disposable busy bees.
By the way: a beautifull movie (one of my favorites) about love and coping with changes.
But in the begining, it just rapidly transfers all control to the corrupt state. Capitalism accomplishes the same thing, but much slower. Either way, we be screwed.
I'm not singing the praises of anything here...but doesn't Bill Gates ability to do good rely on the fact that he has nearly unlimited power and can "afford" to do good as a result of this power. Secondly isn't he rich off the backs of the poor? So how much "good" does he have to do to make up for his bullshit?
I'm not singing the praises of anything here...but doesn't Eddie Vedder's ability to do good rely on the fact that he has nearly unlimited power and can "afford" to do good as a result of this power. Secondly isn't he rich off the backs of the poor? So how much "good" does he have to do to make up for his bullshit?
Personally I think that is complete bullshit on both counts, but I don't see the difference between the two. Gates is also leaving MSFT in 2008 and dedicating himself to charitable giving full time.
I'd like to see you realistically justify the "isn't he rich off the backs of the poor" statement. Microsoft pays well. Microsoft overpays for most of the companies they buy. Microsoft has a good record of keeping jobs in the US. His goods are not a necessity so no one is forced to buy his product.
Take a look at Pearl Jam. If they had worked and found a way to deal with fame they could have continued to be a relevant, popular and high selling band. This would have employed more people and given the band the ability to earn more money and give more to charity. The band decides they can't put up with the fame and would rather not do all the good that they could with the fame. I'll use your question here, "So how much "good" does Pearl Jam have to do to make up for their bullshit?"
This sitting in judgement gets old so quick. Gates does more charity work than you or I ever will, and gives more to charity than you or I ever will. He does more wealth distribution than you or I ever will. He has contributed more to paying for your and mine old age or social security than you or I ever will.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I don't like the way Bill Gates won his fortune. It's actually illegal to do now. I'm not sure if he knew exactly what he was doing. The TV movie "The Pirates of Silicon Valley" portrays both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs as young punks that screw everyone around. However Bill Gates does do a lot of good now. He seems like an alright guy. As much as I want to hate him for his wealth. I fear there are people with a lot more. None of the bank owners share that information. You have to assume they have a lot of money. By means that are far more unethical than what Bill did.
Microsoft is an evil corporation. Legal, but evil. I wouldn't doubt if they had a new xBox just waiting for PS3 to come out. Something that is totally backwards compatible and incorporates Sony's Cell Technology. That's the kind of stuff Microsoft did to Apple, Netscape and OS/2 Warp. Microsoft worked in conjunction with Apple to develope the first Apple GUI. Then released Windows (far superior) immediately after using Apple's technology. Microsoft leased the rights to windows source to OS/2, right after they released their OS (far superior to windows), Microsoft released Windows 95 (far superior to OS/2 Warp). With Netscape they just duplicated it almost exactly and included it with Windows distribution. They continue to do this, indefinately, expanding into other markets and capitalizing on something that in many places would be free. Software used to be all shareware, while the production quality wasn't that good. Bill Gates bought DOS from some home programmer for $50,000 that he didn't have, he sold DOS (which he didn't have) to IBM and used the money to buy DOS. I think Bill is a smart business man, but his company is evil.
The real evil people are the ones that don't tell you how much they have. They don't talk about thing their personal lives. They are secretive. I'll tell you I make $14/hr 40hr/week. It works out to about $830/pay. Why should I hide it? What if I had 25% of the entire worlds wealth? Would I want to hide it then? Especially if I owned a bank? We don't have to worry about the Walton's or the Gates. Inflation is caused by a fractional reserve system. We all need islamic banks or a full-reserve banking system.
Really? I dont think they do, most of the time. Not to mention that "people" never agree among themselves on what they want to ask for...
I know you want to dress your opposition against all collective-slanted thinking up in a=a inevitabilities. Just say you dont like it. You are allowed to. You are also allowed to agree with an ideology. Just say so in plain words. A lot of the time, your replies makes no sense, without the background of anarchist capitalist thought which you believe in. I get this background through our lengthy debates, and filter your replies through that to gleam the meaning. Not everyone does. I think you could save yourself a lot of replying later on by just coming clean at the get-go.
As for the debate at large and related, I'll say this. The problem of communism is that it requires a society made up of communists as a prerequisite. Equally, the problem of anarchic capitalism is that it requires a society of anarchists as a prerequisite to work. Society is not made up of either, but of a mix of the two and a lot of other groups in between. An adherence to any of the extremes, will go against a large groups interpretation of reality and wishes for society. A compromise keeping all parties slightly annoyed is still the best way as I see it.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
How are people meant to make sense out of that? I mean you're shooting at imaginative things now apparently. I feel like I've been reading through one of those sites which has a list of silly quotes. Now would you mind breaking from the bullshit for 30 seconds and say exactly where you're coming from?
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
By reading it.
Did you miss this:
"I would never attempt to shoot a figment of my imagination." --FFG
What do you mean? I've stated my position quite clearly. Summarized, it reads as this:
I will not abdicate my power to think in the face of a gun. Nor will I expect or ask another to do so.
If you have any specific questions, just ask. But don't expect a specific answer to a generic question like "where are you coming from".
Very true.
It's not a matter of liking it. It's a matter of living by it.
I'm not a salesperson.
Sure.
Not true at all. I could care less if my neighbor is a communist. Unfortunately, my neighbor doesn't hold the same opinion. Do you understand why?
What about those of us who have no "wishes for society"?
Right well... that clears that up
Verona??? it's all surmountable
Dublin 23.08.06 "The beauty of Ireland, right there!"
Wembley? We all believe!
Copenhagen?? your light made us stars
Chicago 07? And love
What a different life
Had I not found this love with you
Ok Dan & HH..........give me some time. I'll write something up and post it later on today.
the phrase is couldn't care less
by saying you 'could care less' shows that you do actually have a modicum of care about the scenario, a scenario in which you are trying to highlight you have no care... so grammatically speaking its couldn't care less.. thank you
Exactly. Your neighbour isn't necessarily an anarchist. You got my point. As for what your neighbour holds of opnions, I would not venture a guess as to why, as I dont know your neighbour.
Afraid this is one of those things where no opinions IS an opinion in itself. You want an anarchist society where you can be left alone and people mind their own business. There is your wish for society. Others have other wishes for how society should be ordered.
Anarchist capitalism would work brilliantly among entrepeneurial anarchists, and be a nightmare for people more oriented towards safety and predictability.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Oops. Thanks.