Cowardly people:

Originally posted by sexysadie
I agree with your assertion that human beings tend to follow mother nature established rules , but I’ve seen meager men lifted from the lowliest places from their packs to great places by merely faith in either good or evil supernatural forces and then effecting moral change as Redge777 explained.

I do not disagree. But be wary of your decisions. It does seems that anyone who challenges the hierarchy leadership or the establishments are cut down quick. Whether you are talking about Jesus, John F. Kennedy, or Martin Luther King - all men with new ideas who wanted to shake up the system and all men who were executed for their efforts.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by zerotime]

reply to post by zerotime


I agree that many groups will use decapitation of leadership to quell other groups, but we are talking societies not individuals, and sometimes the sheer act of taking out a leader brings more attention to the new idea. If the idea has merit, this method does not always work. Besides of its terrible moral implications

However in the ones you mentioned it did. (excluding Jesus )

There is another point, you do not have to take over the pack, you only need to have enough in the pack turn to the alpha and say "no more" then the alpha makes concessions to calm the masses. This is the slow change in society. A constant pressure of one idea against the one currently in control.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Redge777]

I don't think she was admiring him. I think he is an evil man who had no soul, but he had a brain and knew how to use it. Some of his speeches that you see on tv are so full of passion, that if I was there in that crowd, surronded by people cheering... I really don't know what I'd do. If I'd cheer a long with and then go home and realize he is a socopath who is trying to commit mass murder? Or if I really listened to a thing he said or he worded it just right with the right amount of passion that I would be bought by it?

Originally posted by MacSen191
I don't think she was admiring him. I think he is an evil man who had no soul, but he had a brain and knew how to use it. Some of his speeches that you see on tv are so full of passion, that if I was there in that crowd, surronded by people cheering... I really don't know what I'd do. If I'd cheer a long with and then go home and realize he is a socopath who is trying to commit mass murder? Or if I really listened to a thing he said or he worded it just right with the right amount of passion that I would be bought by it?

Could you expand on your use of pronouns here, it is difficult to understand what you mean.

You can gain respect through a number of ways - like agreeing with someone over a discussion with conflicting views (this example is the simplist one).

The worst is that there are those who condone this mentality, and so when children hear about this they feel that it is worthwhile to emphasize the point, at least for personal gratification.

*SNIP them - And *SNIP* if you agree with me; this is my point, either expand on it or disagree.


EDIT: If you can't do either of those - then you'd probably have been better off ignoring this post, wouldn't you?

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Throbber]

--------------------------------------------

Removed profanity

From the T&C's

1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.

[edit on 11/10/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by Throbber
You can gain respect through a number of ways - like agreeing with someone over a discussion with conflicting views (this example is the simplist one).

The worst is that there are those who condone this mentality, and so when children hear about this they feel that it is worthwhile to emphasize the point, at least for personal gratification.
*SNIPS* you if you agree with me; this is my point, either expand on it or disagree.


EDIT: If you can't do either of those - then you'd probably have been better off ignoring this post, wouldn't you?

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Throbber]

I don't know if you are tired, but your post are difficult to understand and do not make sense. If they are not suppose to then It might not be the best use of a post in the thread.

Could you add who you are replying to or quote so that we all can follow along better. I am interested in hearing your views weather I disagree or agree.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Redge777]
--------------------------------------

Edited profanity in quote



[edit on 11/10/07 by masqua]

Ah, an indirect response - i'll try and clarify.


Yeah, i'm tired.

I was trying to raise a point on how there are those out there whom deem it not only worthwhile but appropiate even to live your life in such a way that all that matters is that you come out on top - this mentality in itself is purely heirachical by nature; you cannot come out on top if there is nothing to come out on top of (unless of course you consider that seeing as there is nothing to come on top of, you are already on top - along with everyone else).

I am aware that my mannerism is difficult to follow, so i'll whittle down my rhetoric b/s into a single sentence, for coherence.

Supporting the mentality of 'winning is all that matters' is self-defeating.

Actually following such a mentality 'yourself'* is a cyclic form of this; it will lead to stagnation of the mind and ultimately the stagnation of those around you.



The big pointer i was trying to make is that people support this without according due thought to any true understanding of why it is nessecary to support someone's own ideas - you lose sight of the big picture and only focus on the part of picture that has you in it.

Maybe i've missed something, maybe i haven't - that's up to you to decide.



*I am not referring to you personally, i could have used the term 'one's self' perhaps.

Originally posted by sexysadie
I feel there’s a growing number of Americans who are beyond reform.

I interpret this as you saying that there are a lot of people who don't want to act in ways that you want them to act or think they should. I suppose that's true. I feel the same way. People are dumb and awful.

Of course, you're sure that the way you think and act is the right way to go. But some people are going to disagree with you.

Yours is not the only way.

reply to post by Throbber


Thank you for clarifying that, I found it a good comment. I understand what you mean. It seems to many people equate victory with some form of approval from others, or worse some ego thing, true victory comes from something being accomplished. And when discussing a topic, you almost have to look at how have both people been enriched, not who got the best points in.

I do believe in standing for belief, but when possible it is best to learn and merge beliefs with new points of view, and declare mutual victory without self gain or self righteousness as the guide. Instead the oppurtunity to exam ones own thoughts, and learn from others becomes the goal.

If you can't effectivly argue the other point of view, then you do not know your point of view well enough to claim it may be correct. However, I no longer debate topics I disagree with, not sure why, but I do think it is important to look from the other persons point of view.

I hope this is similar to what you were speaking of, your comment inspired some thought in this direction. I enjoy that.

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by sexysadie
I feel there’s a growing number of Americans who are beyond reform.

Of course, you're sure that the way you think and act is the right way to go. But some people are going to disagree with you.
Yours is not the only way.

Don't worry Nobhup I'm not trying to start a cult with this thread and lure you into it. You can go your own way - You can call it another lonely day...

I do believe in standing for belief, but when possible it is best to learn and merge beliefs with new points of view, and declare mutual victory without self gain or self righteousness as the guide. Instead the oppurtunity to exam ones own thoughts, and learn from others becomes the goal.

Mutual victory only goes so far - it would be better if afterwards the competitors could sit it out and figure out where they went wrong, and yet with it still not being about the victory; perhaps Training or Practice (or even sparring) would be a better way of understanding it.

If you simply accept the other person's point of view, neither you nor he will learn anything, and this is a form of the stagnation of mind that i referred to.

Granted, there are those among us whom can function quite well within their own independant mentality, but these people are rare, and are often driven by a personal goal or desire that they feel needs to be fulfilled - only a unique few* can sit back and think through an arguement or confrontation and look at the good points in the competitor as well as yourself; especially when maintaining a non-bias approach to the matter.

If you can't effectivly argue the other point of view, then you do not know your point of view well enough to claim it may be correct. However, I no longer debate topics I disagree with, not sure why, but I do think it is important to look from the other persons point of view.

I hope this is similar to what you were speaking of, your comment inspired some thought in this direction. I enjoy that.

It depends on the purpose - there are those whom may simply be seeking knowledge on the topic and intend to raise points in order to learn more (by using the counter-arguements as mental guidelines, perhaps).

It's difficult to clear-cut human psychology, we're all so damn unique - What one person does out of spite or lust another person could do out of honour or even pity; my point here is that there is one example (the one i outlined) where the two potentials are inherently similar, and in realising the link between the two one can see how it would effect a group of people or community over a period of generations without anyone really making a fuss about it.


I suppose the flipside scenario could be that it isn't about winning, but about making the other guy lose - inherently it's the same mentality but approached in a different way.

I'm glad you're following me so far, feel free to raise a subject for a more in-depth explanation.

Perhaps some other posters could share what they think about this.




EDIT: *For example; People who can evaluate a situation calmly without allowing personal judgement to shroud the truth.

[edit on 12-10-2007 by Throbber]

Originally posted by Throbber
Mutual victory only goes so far - it would be better if afterwards the competitors could sit it out and figure out where they went wrong, and yet with it still not being about the victory; perhaps Training or Practice (or even sparring) would be a better way of understanding it.

I think of victory in terms of game theory, where the situation where both parties achieve the highest combined 'victory' is the best. This victory I sort of define as greater understanding of the topic, the others point of view, and the reasons why one chooses there point of view. The implementation of these greater understandings then help all of society, as long as that is the final goal of applying the knowledge.

Sparing itself, sometimes leads one to defend the point even when they know it is wrong, the "CNN Crossfire" method I find some people use points in an argument they know are wrong, yet they also know they can 'win' an argument with them. Someone to disprove the point is forced to trudge up mountains of evidence, or thought, to show they are flawed. So the known wrong point wins in the glossed over view of most people. This is distasteful to me. But sparing to just better work on listening and adapting I believe to be good.

only a unique few(People who can evaluate a situation calmly without bias) can sit back and think through an argument or confrontation and look at the good points in the competitor as well as yourself; especially when maintaining a non-bias approach to the matter.

The ego loves to jump up when you are forced to tilt your head and realize the others point is valid. This is when many jump to other means to 'win' instead of facing what the validity of the other persons argument means to there world view and actions. It is easy to do, but also easy to recognize in ones self. It is best to think before responding at this point. and of coarse I do this at times too.

It depends on the purpose - there are those whom may simply be seeking knowledge on the topic and intend to raise points in order to learn more (by using the counter-arguments as mental guidelines, perhaps).

It's difficult to clear-cut human psychology, we're all so damn unique - What one person does out of spite or lust another person could do out of honour or even pity;

My statement is flawed, I said you have to know the counter argument, I should say that knowing the counter argument and still logically seeing it as flawed shows the validity of your own position.

A discussion is a way to bring more counter points against a persons own views. I have to then either accept the counter point and reform my view(learning), or offer my view of that counter point(teaching) either way it is an exchange of information. Assuming no one is arguing a point they know to be wrong for ulterior motives, including the spite motive you mention. Honorable discussions require honesty.

If a goal is to satisfy ego, or show up another, then the discussion can be an event, like a match, but this, I believe should not be done on issues that also cause hurt, due to high emotional attachment to the belief. It should be agreed that it is a fun competition and not done in a hurtful way.

Not only can vindictive motives, or ego motives motivate an argument, but also other motivations can change the intent of the discussion. For Instance once you take into account the crowd listening in, you see that many arguments are not geared to the other person in the discussion, but to convince the crowd. This can easily lead to frustrating uses of deception and deflection, and changes the purpose from knowledge to building supporters who believe a premise built on untruth.

I consider an argument without honesty to be insulting to the crowd, and once the true intent is shown, the crowd should realize a person either did not believe the crowd capable of understanding the real reason why said person wanted support, or the support he wanted did not help the crowd. Now making a truthful argument and the crowd deducing the truth through critical thinking is OK, or even them disagreeing, but known deception is irritating.

my point here is that there is one example (the one i outlined) where the two potentials are inherently similar, and in realising the link between the two one can see how it would effect a group of people or community over a period of generations without anyone really making a fuss about it.

Yes statements should not be for the gain of the speaker, they should be geared for the gain of the listener. I am not sure of what you mean by an effect over generations without fuss. I think I am missing that part.

I suppose the flipside scenario could be that it isn't about winning, but about making the other guy lose - inherently it's the same mentality but approached in a different way.

They lose when they are given enough new information or perspective to realize you are correct, so their view is now accepted by them as wrong. Yet this really is a win for them, assuming your view is right.

But that's not your point, I think your point is you are not doing it to win, you are not trying to build your ego, or hurt another person. You are trying to share knowledge, your point of view. I agree that is admirable.

Perhaps some other posters could share what they think about this.

I gave it a couple days, then posted again

[edit on 15-10-2007 by Redge777]

reply to post by sexysadie

Can you imagine if the founders of our country had not had any more guts than the average American of today? We'd all have an English accent and protestants would be hard to come by. I enjoyed your post and I couldn't agree more. I've challenged the government a few times and paid a serious price because of the cowards who didn't think that their freedom was worth taking a stand for. I soon found out that I was on my own.

reply to post by preacher4thedeaf


Yup, you’re all alone in this crappy world when you don’t follow the herd to the slaughter house. Seems there’s some passionate people making posts here though, (one of whose threads I rudely interrupted, talking about women’s underwear, sorry about that Anhinga.) I feel cowardly behavior is spawned by the media who lumps people into groups to better control them and ridicules free-thinkers publicly as a warning to anyone who strays from the pack. Consequently we live in a world where people are constantly trying to attack each other so they are not the ones who get picked on. Although our country is greatly divided, politically, I think people from both ends of the spectrum can agree on one thing; we are not being served very well by our media who’ve all but decided our next elections, until we can put aside our differences and come together to fix this ‘the biggest problem in America’ we will continue to erode as a country.

The battle has always been the establishment in unison with the masses against those few individuals who are awake at any given time. This is the way it has always been since the beginning of "civilization". The awake in any given generation will suffer always, we have to carry the cross because no one else has the awareness nor the backbone and/or integrity! Also remember the masses never change anything so you should never expect anything to come out of mass movements and as a matter of fact the elite are very schooled in how to deal with masses of people. It is the individual that has always given them problems we are the glitches in the matrix and if we teach our families and those who are asking questions we can topple this goliath slowly.

reply to post by preid2


I agree, but I think you really need celebrity like status to influence other peoples thinking in a meaningful way these days, yet the celebrity’s today seem specially selected for not having any real opinions on anything. It’s funny I’ve wasted all kinds of time and energy trying to enlighten certain people in my family about critical issues, but they’d easily respect the dumbest person on TV’s opinion about the most valueless issue before they’d even consider anything I said. Reminds me of an end of days biblical quote ‘And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.’