Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

a reply to: daskakik

Why not just accept a historical example?

Sure. Is Hitler the example?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Jim Jones.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Give it a shot.

You really don't understand my question, do you? You are implying that you can not be swayed so therefore you are not a good candidate. I can't believe I have to explain. We are talking about people who are easily swayed like the German people.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5

Interesting you thought that post an insult to you...How so?

Apologies if I am wrong. I assumed.

Apology accepted...of course my less than specific words carried consequence, in this case your erroneous assumptions of feeling insulted.

Or perhaps that was my intent? Hard to tell..Just words after all?

a reply to: daskakik

Jim Jones.

People did believe him, and followed him to their death, very true.

a reply to: Indigo5

Even if he didn't feel insulted, he accused you of trying to be insulting. That's should be the end of the thread.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

People did believe him, and followed him to their death, very true.

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That wasn't so hard, was it?

a reply to: Indigo5

Apology accepted...of course my less than specific words carried consequence, in this case your feeling insulted.

I didn't feel insulted, I only assumed you were trying to insult. The only consequence of your words were that the made no sense.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That wasn't so hard, was it?

That's about the 5th time you have assumed I agreed with you on something, but didn't.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
I don't think we are that far apart in understanding, the only thing I don't really agree with is the "not doing harm to another living creature", this would be contrary to my belief that we have the right to seek food. Yes we would be violating the right of life of the animal we harvest for food, but I understand that it reciprocal. If the bear wants to eat me, that is fully within it's right to seek food, but I still have the right to defend my right to life.

Then it really does seem to come down to if you believe in a supreme force or not that either gave us dominion over other creatures, or one who believes we are entitled to kill to feed ourselves. I would need to find out what your beliefs are in that area, because for me who identifies as an atheist and is not very spiritual in the sense that I do not mediate, pray or try to have an altered state of consciousness, I don't believe in moral absolutes or that there is an objective authority on how we should act and what rights we are entitled to.

That is why the way in which you are using the word "right" (e.g. right to seek food) is problematic, because when you compare it to say a state right, like the right to vote in an election, it seems like you are saying the right to seek food means it does not matter what we do when getting that food, are actions are justified.

In other words, how can one determine whether any action they take outside a society/state is inherently a right or not? What makes it a right? Is your survival objectively more important than the bears just because you are more intelligent and able to reason to a higher degree? Who or what says those attributes are important enough to establish your "right" to kill other living creatures?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes you did. You admitted that Jim Jones convinced his followers to follow him and obey him, therefore giving him the power.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yes you did. You admitted that Jim Jones convinced his followers to follow him and obey him, therefore giving him the power.

I still don't get the point, or what this has to do with anything.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

*Facepalm*

The original point:

If someone con convince others through words/ideas then he can control them. That gives him power.

And you replied to that with a silly statement of your own:

Control him. With a remote control? How does that work?

The point is you can convince people to be under your power, therefore they give you the power to control them. Eg. Hitler and Jim Jones.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Everything is "mere physics". It's simply untrue that ideas or words are powerful, in any literal sense. The metaphor that words are powerful is a common superstition, but when measured for work or power or energy, is the opposite of true.

Yes, when people such as you who have thought deeply about these topics in some way and have come to this understanding. For people that have not, they do not agree. That IS technically their problem and not yours, but is it within your perspective from this point of view (which is based on reason) to force them to come to the same understanding (which would then make it an instance of you exercising your "moral authority" on them)?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The point is you can convince people to be under your power, therefore they give you the power to control them. Eg. Hitler and Jim Jones.

I'm not sure how believing someone is the same as them controlling you. Deceiving you, maybe, but control is a stupid word to use.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

con·trol
kənˈtrōl/
noun
noun: control

1.
the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

Quite simple.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I'm not sure how believing someone is the same as them controlling you. Deceiving you, maybe, but control is a stupid word to use.

It isn't. Believing them allows them to control you. Control you by deceit.

Sounds like you can use a thesaurus.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Do you know the difference between a noun and verb?

verb (controls, controlling, controlled)
1 [ with obj. ] determine the behavior or supervise the running of: he was appointed to control the company's marketing strategy.
• maintain influence or authority over: you shouldn't have dogs if you can't control them.
• limit the level, intensity, or numbers of: he had to control his temper.
• (control oneself) remain calm and reasonable despite provocation: he made an effort to control himself.
• regulate (a mechanical or scientific process): the airflow is controlled by a fan.
• (as adj. controlled) (of a drug) restricted by law with respect to use and possession: a sentence for possessing controlled substances.
2 [ no obj. ] Statistics (control for) take into account (an extraneous factor that might affect results) when performing an experiment: no attempt was made to control for variations | (as adj. controlled) : a controlled trial.

Yes, it's a stupid word. No one is literally controlling another.

a reply to: daskakik

It isn't. Believing them allows them to control you. Control you by deceit.

Sounds like you can use a thesaurus.

Sounds like...Seems like... Seems like that's all you can offer.

Again, its not literal control, like a marionette.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
con·trol
kənˈtrōl/
noun
noun: control

1.
the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

Quite simple.

The point you seem to be missing is that words can have immense power, but the decision to act on your feelings in regard to those words is still within your control. The ONLY exception (I can think of right now) is if you are mentally insane at the time and actually cannot control your behaviour based on your feelings.

Nobody compels you to act. They can persuade you, manipulate you and deceive you into believing you MUST do something, but the decision to act lies with the individual.

It would be near impossible to argue against that. Not because I am so smart or knowledgeable and cannot be wrong, but because the logic is 100% ironclad and cannot be disputed with our current level of knowledge we have awareness of.