kokigami
-
Posts
4,896 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by kokigami
-
-
it's a matter of definitions
an·ti·thet·i·cal/ˌantəˈTHetikəl/
Adjective:
- Directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible.
- Connected with, containing, or using the rhetorical device of antithesis.
if it is mutually incompatible with human endeavour, humans can't do it.
- Directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible.
-
if it were antithetical to human endeavour, it wouldn't happen.
-
scientology puts a good deal of stock in communications. Parsing is important to that, I should think. What if the price is a life time of servitude? And I have no idea what you are talking about. That is why i am asking questions..
Ayn Rand wasn't a scientologist. She was an athiest. Her objectivism is not a scientological objectivism. What she meant by enlightened is not necessarily what you think she meant, or what you mean.
The problem with viewing the potential of Ayn Rands objectivism through a spectrum of Scientology is that Scientology takes the position that, while everyone can achieve an understanding of the eight dynamics, leading to a well balanced world view and good decisions, most people don't. And likely won't anytime soon. So advocating objectivism in this enviroment doesn't seem to be in keeping with the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics..
-
it is if they are also your competitors..And thus my use of the word rational. It is not rational to make ones customers unable to purchase further wants/needs from me and in no way does it exclude charity.
My objection has always been the use of force to take from me ( or anyone ) in order to buy votes from someone who will sell them. That which is taken from me goes under the name of taxes, or fees or penalties or charges, all with various adjectives such as income, excise, driving license, etc that make them seem so innoccent.
What is force?
If I am starving, and others have food, but will not share, unless I do as they bid, that is a form of force, is it not?
-
Relax, don't panic, use black ink.
-
three hours, I don't have right now. Maybe when I am bored..
-
interesting rendition. Not bad. kinda gets lost a few times, but also has some really strong moments. isn't as good as Jimi.
ed to say, better than Rosanne
-
-
gotta love the ACLU. The real problem I see is that posting a sign saying the KKK is going to pick up the garbage on the highway is an invitation to some folk to litter the highway. Not that I condone that behavior, I just recognize that it is likely to happen. Which is a shame. It is probably the reason that the Missouri KKK got kicked out of the program.Looks the the ACLU is looking it to taking up the KKK's cause.
Now that is tolerance!
-
I doubt that, though I don't doubt you believe it.I know which is the One True God.
-
What, the devil, are you babbling about sir?
(I am thinking a lost linky is in order..)
-
good point.But God is already in control which makes the need for artificial GE moot.
-
which one true God then?Any god, diminuative "g"; The ONE TRUE God, Capital "G".
Or are we talking hypothetically? Whichever one is, in fact? And what if one isn't? As we don't actually know, this can get confusing.
-
even more accurately.. Any given God is improbable. Assuming probability theory is sound..You're partially correct...... God IS.
-
Explain what is ethical about not maximizing my profit margin, but instead surrendering profits for the good of society? Why do you support this indoctrination?No, once again you are trying to put your word into my processor.
I want private education to give the data about Ethics. It is happeing in several places but needs to be more.
Some examples are Delphi schools, Washburn Academy, among others.
Socialism is working against society and is caused by the silliness of public education and the maunderings of Karl Marx. It has never been really understood by its adherents and thus is thought it must be really great since even you don't understand it.
Karl Marx is not the final word on socialism.
-
Would not conform to capitalism.. What you are suggesting is teaching socialism..There is a way to reduce and/or control such experiments and that is through the tech of Ethics. Something good can always be measured by the benefit to the largest number of dynamics and something bad is the greatest harm to the largest number of dynamics.
IF the researcher were ethical, there would be very tight controls placed by himself before such research started. Only a person wishing harm on lots of people would be involved in loose controls of such research. Only a mad man would ever release such on the population. It would be an act of insanity.
-
I am comfortable in uncertainty, mostly.
-
In case no one has offered up a Welcome.. Welcome. We who post here tend to be opinionated. This is good, in that it generates lots of fun discussions, but bad, in that it tends to put off lurkers who don't want to jump into a kerfuffle. It also tends to take us far a field from topics as posted.again a theory, no evidence.
Let me remind everyone, the topic is about church leadership.. And I concur with our new member, at least on the margins. Many churches are run by Charismatic leaders, ministers, who dominate the church's culture. Probably not a good mix. As an agnostic, I am not sure I can support Steven's "proper" model, either.. The elders are an oligarchy, which is only marginally better than the tyranny, and possibly worse in some respects. No, I tend towards a radical interpretation of Martin Luther's priesthood of all believers. There is no proper church leadership.
-
I get older.. mostly..
-
yes, but you are uniquely judgemental.Facebooks and Twitter to me is just one giant plebs space.
-
no, not really. I don't beat myself up about it. I simply take a moment at times to look for alternatives readily available in my surroundings. Rather than prepare to take a life, I prepare to get creative, very fast, even if that puts me at risk. I accept that I cannot be completely prepared, but those with the kill or be killed mentality are also not completely prepared, so that doesn't put me at a disadvantage. I see it as an advantage. Consider the circumstances of the Gabby Giffords event and the retired officer who took down the shooter. He didn't have to kill to achieve that result. He did take a bullet in the mean time. I see that as a good trade.
really.. so, how do you identify these people. Aaaand, just because they want you to kill them, doesn't mean you have to do it, does it. No, this is just an excuse to kill someone.And sometimes the individual wants to be killed and leaves no choice.
Yes, I know that is insane but the reactive mind works that way sometimes.
Sometimes it appears to an individual that the only way to stop them from harming others is to be, themselves, killed.
-
Then it requires preparing ahead of time for such an event. Want to know one thing that is counter productive to that preparation. Convincing oneself that not being able to find that alternative because I was unprepared is absolution for being unprepared. Another is preparing to kill. Am I unprepared for some situations.. certainly. But that is my fault.That may well be true Koki, but certainly you can recognize that "negligent" is a bit harsh, since it denotes carelessness or unreasonableness on your part. Many situations, like the one you describe (and I'm assuming you mean a deadly threat), do not allow appropriate time for creativity in finding the least violent means to detain an aggressor and a balancing of interests of all parties involved. When someone poses an immediate, deadly threat to yourself or others, it would be careless and unreasonable, ie negligent, to simply allow it to happen because you don't want to kill. Self defense and defense of others is a justifiable and, in some cases, heroic act even if someone loses his life.
Maybe, but probably not. It may be that the opportunity has already been bungled by the time I realize it is necessary to intervene.. but, that is poor planning, poor performance. Not proof that there was no alternative solution.It IS possible that there were no other solution.
-
And we see how the number of circumstances under which we would kill broadens, with only a little nudging. Interestingly, nearly everyone has identified the actions of others as the reason they would kill. This strikes me as a displacement of personal responsibility. I would kill them, if they did such and such. They did such and such, so it is their fault they are dead.
I might end up killing someone if they posed a threat to others. But, I know that the actual reason I would kill them is because I was negligent in finding an alternative solution.
-
so, you fail to imagine any other solution to those problems than nothing or kill?You don't see this as a survival instinct? Do you really find issue in the nuance of "spiritual development" as opposed to real interactions?
If I am taking all your possessions, you do nothing?
If I am raping our family, you do nothing?
At what point do you escape the mule fitters of political correctiness and instead act as an alpha male in your species?
Egotism/altruism
in Philosophy & Theory
Posted
progressivism brought us out of barbarism into civilization. That is what we call "progress". See the connection?
rule by consensus rather than by force? a progressive ideal. Equality of mankind. progressive.. Free speech.. progressive.. But all kinda off topic. We are discussing egotism vs altruism. Both progressives and conservatives show signs of both. I am especially interested in the term "enlightened self interest". I am having a hard time determining what this means. It is apparent that AR added the term enlightened to distinguish it from simple self interest, which it would seem was not what she was talking about. But the adjective has a fairy tale quality. It makes her brand of self interest somehow superior, without defining what makes it superior. It seems very emperors new clothes.