Can we stop taking delight in the suffering of others please?

reply to post by nenothtu

...but I'd buy you a beer or 12 and yak for hours with you over them. You seem to be one who can hold reasonable conversation once past my initial gruffness. That serves to sort out the wheat from the chaff.

kinda what I thought - and agreed - about that whole wheat/chaff thing. I like people - mostly - even when they look like they might want to pull out my liver with their bare hands :-)

Yes, I DO have a thing for weakness, but it may not be the same "thing" as one would think at first blush. Everyone has them, somewhere, in some area, and by the same token everyone has strengths of their own. "Weak" people need to be protected, so that their strengths may flourish. One day their strengths may be what protect the former protector in HIS hour of weakness.

that was actually pretty. I couldn't agree more - we all do our protecting in our own way - much of it goes unnoticed

Loyalty extended to the entire group is STILL loyalty, and I wouldn't see that as "fascist" either. I would wonder what the loyalty is to guard against, however, if it is extended to the entire group. Where is the perceived "threat" that would be the counterpoint to a loyalty if the entire group is covered by the loyalty? Who is left to threaten, and thus require a loyalty?

how I see it - sometimes we are our own worst enemy. The group needs to look out for itself - and protect itself from it's own worst tendencies - not so different from what each of us does as individuals. The thing is - it doesn't really work that way in real life - or at least not all the time. We're talking about human nature - and we are competitive, and maybe to some extent we require a common enemy to keep us together. I just see us all as the common enemy.

seriously - it's a huge discussion, isn't it? Because - we'll create enemies where there are none. Fear and loathing create strange bedfellows - this subject loyalty - I meant it when I said it's worth discussing. It affects everything mankind does

I do know - in case you were wondering - that sometimes there are very real, easily identified enemies

Language has a meaning, words have definitions. I take umbrage at myself - or anyone else for that matter, even an "enemy" - being labelled with the incorrect terminology of "fascist" for making a pledge. "Fascist" actually means something else altogether. When words begin to be misapplied, eventually their meanings change as the misapplication gains acceptance. It is a disservice to REAL fascists, as well as the rest of us.

It minimizes fascism, make of it a thing that "ain't so bad - it's just taking a pledge!". It denies the essential danger posed by fascism in favor of applying the term to just anyone who doesn't think the same.

Yes. Definitely. Language is like magic - you can make it do so many things. People are in so many ways controlled by their words - led this way and that. Unlike many people who think words are just tools - I think language is everything - it defines us. So - we should all be responsible for what we say and how we say it - in a very real way, words can kill

Born to war, perhaps. We do what we are best at, I suppose. War is bad. People get killed, things get torn up. I'd really rather be farming. The rewards are better - especially at supper time - but I don't have the same aptitude for it. I don't live for war, I live instead for the day when it will be unnecessary, and we can all get along in peace. I don't think that day will happen any time soon.

I live for the day when I have actually outlived my usefulness, and can be put to pasture and rest rather than someone trying to gain advantage by merely declaring I've outlived it, hoping to put me to sleep and out to pasture so they can take advantage of those I've charged myself to look after.

not sure what to say now...except that what we are best at may be different - but our dreams are the same

well said

My own sense of right and wrong. It may not - probably doesn't - fall into complete accord with yours or anyone else's, but I adhere to it like life depended upon it, because I've seen times when it was ALL I had.

My sense of right and wrong is probably not that different form yours. It's our approaches that are different. But that's not something we can really compare - and certainly - it's not a question of which is better or worse. You touched on this earlier - we all have our place - we have our individual ways - it all comes together to benefit the group

We'll never all of us see eye to eye - but I don't think it would workout well if we did. The differences are important to the group.

thank you nenothtu for the most meaningful exchange I've had here for quite some time

I didn't expect it - not in this thread. Life is funny :-)

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

how I see it - sometimes we are our own worst enemy. The group needs to look out for itself - and protect itself from it's own worst tendencies - not so different from what each of us does as individuals. The thing is - it doesn't really work that way in real life - or at least not all the time. We're talking about human nature - and we are competitive, and maybe to some extent we require a common enemy to keep us together. I just see us all as the common enemy.

It may be that we define our boundaries slightly differently - you see the potential "enemy" as being within the overall group, I tend to draw the line such that they are external to it. The same inimical individuals, but you see them as problems within to be dealt with, I see them as problems without, to be guarded against.

You're right, human nature is what it is, and there will always be those whose goal in life is to gather up power to themselves, and "lord it over" the rest. Those would be controllers are who I see as the opposition. Perhaps the sad part of that is that quite a few people like that do it out of insecurity. Because of some event or lack of control over life in their history, they develop a burning need to control everything they can possibly control.

It still can't be allowed to extend beyond themselves or people who consent to that control.

seriously - it's a huge discussion, isn't it? Because - we'll create enemies where there are none. Fear and loathing create strange bedfellows - this subject loyalty - I meant it when I said it's worth discussing. It affects everything mankind does

It is a huge discussion. An over-developed sense of fear is what I believe creates enemies out of the unknown, where they may not exist at all. It boils back down, in my mind, to that same sense of insecurity that leads to overly developed attempts at control.

I personally think the best approach to the unknown, or simply new, unfamiliar situations is to be guarded, but not apprehensive. Being "guarded" keeps one watchful, being apprehensive tends to create bogey men in the mind which often get translated to the ground. When one is guarded, watchful, but open to the situation developing in either direction, he more often than not is pleasantly surprised. Being apprehensive creates a predisposition to negative perceptions.

I do know - in case you were wondering - that sometimes there are very real, easily identified enemies

Those are the sort that are easily dealt with - most of us can agree on who they are, so it creates less friction internal to the group, however large one may think that group to be.

Yes. Definitely. Language is like magic - you can make it do so many things. People are in so many ways controlled by their words - led this way and that. Unlike many people who think words are just tools - I think language is everything - it defines us. So - we should all be responsible for what we say and how we say it - in a very real way, words can kill

Orwell had an interesting point in 1984 concerning the way language itself can be changed and used as a control mechanism, It's harder for people to convey concepts when the language itself no longer supports those concepts, or when words have been changed to mean other concepts altogether.

We'll never all of us see eye to eye - but I don't think it would workout well if we did. The differences are important to the group.

Exactly. I've often said that if we both agree on everything, one of us is unnecessary.

thank you nenothtu for the most meaningful exchange I've had here for quite some time

I didn't expect it - not in this thread. Life is funny :-)

You're welcome, and thank you. It was mutually beneficial.

who says i dont weigh 'honour' or 'loyalty'













'pledge' weighed and found wanting by english dictionary


stilledit by editopsorg

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by NadaCambia

I don't think many Americans realise just how foul some of their views are to people in 2011.

It's not that we don't realize it - it's that we don't care. If you can't handle opposing views and stand your ground defending you position, it may be time to find another position.

s=14999