The philosophy of minding your own business

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MadHatter364
 


The unnecessary agencies like the NSA, the EPA, etc.

Alphabets ... you see?




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

ketsuko


- My rights end where yours begin, yours end where mine begin


I agree although some who agree may quibble on how to define this. For example, how far out do a person's rights extend? Most policy issues socially come down to one side claiming that their side doesn't affect the other side at all, but the other side would be a gross violation of their rights to implement.


- I do not have the right to judge others for their actions that do not harm others


No one but God has the right to ultimately judge a person in their entirety. However, we do absolutely have the right to judge things for ourselves. For example, a recovering addict is perfectly justified in cutting off all his old addict buddies because hanging around them while they are using is too risky. He might not be able to resist the temptation to start using again, so even if their habits are technically not harming anyone else ... it would be wise to judge them not the best companions and avoid them. Wouldn't that be a wise judgment on his part?

[judge]- We would all be better off if we tried to live with this credo


To some degree this is true.


Obviously, as with anything in life, you cannot write about it and expect to capture the spirit in it's entirety. Far too much is done in the name of the law that in my opinion actually exceeds the limitation of the law due to technicalities, loopholes, and misconstruencies.

Notice I asked if people could live by this *credo* and not by these *laws*. In other words, I'm suggesting an effort to be a self governing person, rather than having governance institutionalized. I believe it is the very institutionalization of governance that leads to the very problems we had today. Things become intentionally obfuscated. People look to secure their jobs by obscuring the reality of the law and making it intentionally difficult to read.

A recovering addict avoiding contact with those who still use, to me, is not judging anyone but themselves. They are judging themselves unable to withstand the temptation, and thus removing themselves from that potentiality.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   

whyamIhere


Although I am not a fan of this guy.

I agree with this statement and try to live by it.


Unfortunately, I live in this yahoo's backyard...so I see him and his sanctimonious wife on the tv almost every day.

While I'm not one to play nicey nice, I do see the benefit in adopting this approach to things. I do adhere to it when I can. Sometimes though, not so nice things simply both need to be said and heard.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Staroth
Words to live by!

edit on 10-1-2014 by Staroth because: (no reason given)


I absolutely couldn't agree more.....



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Staroth
Words to live by!

edit on 10-1-2014 by Staroth because: (no reason given)


A duplicate post...I could delete it...but, it says so much...might as well let it sink in twice....
edit on 10-1-2014 by zeroBelief because: because....poo....



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:57 PM
link   

zeroBelief
- My rights end where yours begin, yours end where mine begin
- What I do that doesn't harm myself or others, isn't up for review by others
- I do not have the right to judge others for their actions that do not harm others
- We would all be better off if we tried to live with this credo


The emphasized requirement is completely wrong headed -- it is not your business if I wish to harm myself without harming anyone else.

That is precisely how do-gooders or state nannies operate -- they declare that something you like doing is harming you (whether you agree with it or not, whether you care even if it does or not), then they come into your life (usually with force of state behind) to protect you from yourself (which usually, after all "help" is rendered, amounts to transferring some money from your pocket to theirs; after all the "help" isn't free).

There is no need to meddle into life of someone under pretext of protecting him from himself, since that is a self-correcting problem.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Bone75
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


Name something you can do that won't have any kind of negative effect on anyone else. I can only think of a couple, but I'm interested in what you might come up with.



This is not a debate, this is a personal credo.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

frazzle

zeroBelief
I'd like to run an un-official poll right here. If you agree with the following statements, please respond positively to this thread.



- My rights end where yours begin, yours end where mine begin
- What I do that doesn't harm myself or others, isn't up for review by others
- I do not have the right to judge others for their actions that do not harm others
- We would all be better off if we tried to live with this credo


Hmm, generally I'd agree with all that. But lets take voters as an example. Their behavior is not only acceptable in polite society, they all seem to think their personal judgments are "in my best interests" even after their choices have been proven to be sleeping with the enemy.

Now if my dearly beloved is sleeping with every tom dick and harry, betty sue and mary, I can divorce my former dearly beloved and get on with my life. It doesn't exactly work out that way with a brainless voter's judgment, at least I haven't yet figured out a way to divorce John McCain.



All I can say with regards to voting is this....if the issue isn't something you are personally in favor of, think it through and see if it's something that could be done by an individual without really causing any harm to anyone else.

Let's say we lived in a world where orange juice were demonized and there was a movie called "Orange juice MADNESS". Years later, the world starts to come around and realize, hey, maybe orange juice and it's consumption isn't all that bad. Let's vote on it. I personally would vote to allow it if it were made legal in a way that didn't harm anyone due to it's growth and harvesting (gotta pay the people who squeeze said orange juice, they can't be made to work at squeezing against their will) and if it's sale and consumption could take place without harming anyone or directly (and potentially indirectly) creating crime.

Now, before we really get into the legalities issue...let's remember..Tide laundry detergent is designed and sold for one purpose, cleaning clothing. Yet of late it has become the object of theft in urban areas and used essentially as monies on the street. So, even Orange Juice, in the example I stated above, could be used in such a way against it's intended purpose and induce crime. There is little to do to prevent that.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

chiefsmom
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Funny, I had the same problem with that first one. Just doesn't read right for some reason.

The others, yes, I wish more people lived by them.



The basic idea behind the first statement is that we can all do what we want, so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else. Can I just start shooting into the air? Sounds like fun. But, someone could get hurt or even killed because of the bullets falling down.

Unfortunately, this is not a blind-follow-me credo. Like much in life, there are things you have to think through and use some common sense.


And again (even though you didn't bring it up), this is not something I am suggesting as a law, or as a device for governance of a populace...rather, a personal belief system...a credo...to attempt to live by......in your actions...voting...etc.....



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

MadHatter364

zeroBelief
I'd like to run an un-official poll right here. If you agree with the following statements, please respond positively to this thread.



- My rights end where yours begin, yours end where mine begin
- What I do that doesn't harm myself or others, isn't up for review by others
- I do not have the right to judge others for their actions that do not harm others
- We would all be better off if we tried to live with this credo

Let me just say, you ever run for presidency and use THIS as your program, well then I might just start voting again...



Although who doesn't like a good ego stroke every now and then, I am not a presidential candidate. Nowhere near close. I'd be too likely to tell someone what to go and do to themselves. It's just in my genetic make up.


Rather, I really intended this as an exercise of viewing yourself, your actions, and the world around you, including society. Not as a set of laws.

Nor am I saying there should be NO laws. I simply think that keeping these thoughts in mind as a citizen of the world by everyone would make the world a better place.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by MadHatter364
 


He'd have to promise to get rid of a huge chunk of the alphabet and lot of other stuff first.



Believe me, I wish I could.

But again, this was never about an idea for a government...rather, a personal credo to live by...wherein if we all lived with these thoughts in mind, I genuinely think we would all benefit from it.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Aliensun
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


If you lived alone on a little island that wasn't claimed by anyone (countries included), then you could have your perfect world.
Barring that in some fashion you would have companionship in some form if living elsewhere. Perhaps that companionship would include other living, breathing, farting bodies with opinions and direct influences over your life, or maybe they would be more remote, stuck away in a stuffy office somewhere going through files or picking tomatoes for your table in some foreign country. Undoubtedly, where ever you decided to set foot in this world you would have some interaction with other humans. You would have to appreciate those folks because you would have needs of them in large and small ways. You would need the check that comes from the paperwork you filled out earlier, you would need the tomatoes, or maybe you would need that troublesome tooth pulled. You would have to conform to what they wanted from you. To a large or small extent, that would take some of the local currency, be it sweat of your brow or a physical currency of something you had to trade providing that they were willing to deal with you.

I suppose you could disappear into a deep forest somewhere, run naked through the trees and eat grubs, but few go to that extreme. A nice cave always sounded nice to me, but even with that there is always a community out there that has its standard by which you must conform to some extent to its expectations of a human being.

Many of us like to bitch about the world around us, but we shrug and tend to find our individuals ways of coping. And that is what life is about whether in the woods alone or in line at the supermarket with one of those farting people in front of you.

I hope you find peace. I recommend a serious contemplation about taking up some form of meditation. You can find relief there.




cre·do
noun \ˈkrē-(ˌ)dō, ˈkrā-\

: an idea or set of beliefs that guides the actions of a person or group


Pal, all I suggested was a change of thought, one that I personally try to see the world through and I think would benefit the world.

If that equates to "bitching about the world around us", I'm sorry I trampled on your flowerbed. I certainly didn't mean to, nor did I even realize it would begin to be trampling on your flowerbed.

Perhaps, you were really just looking for something to be super negative about?



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Dreaded double post....
edit on 10-1-2014 by zeroBelief because: again and again and again and again and again!



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

ZeussusZ
reply to post by johnb
 


Emotional harm is a personal choice that you have made yourself. You can't blame others for that, it is a choice you make to be emotional harmed/offended just as you could have made the choice to not be harmed.
Op great thread, agree with you , apart from judging people. All depends what you do with that judgment.


All I was trying to say about not judging folks is.......that if we worry less about whether our neighbor is wrong or right in their actions or beliefs.......it frees us up to focus more on our own.

I personally absolutely disagree with much about organized religion. But, it's your right to believe. I'd actively defend your right to believe. On the principle that I have the same right to believe in whatever in the world I see fit to believe in, provided my belief and yours don't harm another (such as, believing that children exist to be hunted...not a good or safe thought at all....no matter how tempting it may be to hunt the little brat that is banging the back of your seat on a trans-atlantic flight the entire way and you're suffering from an epic hangover...nope...not a good idea at all



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

zeroBelief
I'd like to run an un-official poll right here. If you agree with the following statements, please respond positively to this thread.



- My rights end where yours begin, yours end where mine begin
- What I do that doesn't harm myself or others, isn't up for review by others
- I do not have the right to judge others for their actions that do not harm others
- We would all be better off if we tried to live with this credo


Everything you just posted is subjective, meaning that rights, harm, judging is all up for debate when it comes to what people think they are, or even levels of each.

The problem with our world is people.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   

nightlight7

zeroBelief
- My rights end where yours begin, yours end where mine begin
- What I do that doesn't harm myself or others, isn't up for review by others
- I do not have the right to judge others for their actions that do not harm others
- We would all be better off if we tried to live with this credo


The emphasized requirement is completely wrong headed -- it is not your business if I wish to harm myself without harming anyone else.

That is precisely how do-gooders or state nannies operate -- they declare that something you like doing is harming you (whether you agree with it or not, whether you care even if it does or not), then they come into your life (usually with force of state behind) to protect you from yourself (which usually, after all "help" is rendered, amounts to transferring some money from your pocket to theirs; after all the "help" isn't free).

There is no need to meddle into life of someone under pretext of protecting him from himself, since that is a self-correcting problem.



Notice this thread is in the PHILOSOPHY section?

Not the LEGAL section?

Notice I didn't say "EVERYONE HAS TO THINK THIS WAY?"

And BTW, just wanted to add...maybe I should change that first one. Because quite honestly, if you wish to commit suicide, I genuinely believe you should be able to. If you wish to huff paint, go to town.

There are people in the world who wish to hurt themselves. Some temporarily, some permanently. I get that. I don't think we should stand in their way. This is about personal freedom, and being free to do as you see fit without being judged.
edit on 10-1-2014 by zeroBelief because: don't judge me....:::huff:::



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Realtruth

zeroBelief
I'd like to run an un-official poll right here. If you agree with the following statements, please respond positively to this thread.



- My rights end where yours begin, yours end where mine begin
- What I do that doesn't harm myself or others, isn't up for review by others
- I do not have the right to judge others for their actions that do not harm others
- We would all be better off if we tried to live with this credo


Everything you just posted is subjective, meaning that rights, harm, judging is all up for debate when it comes to what people think they are, or even levels of each.

The problem with our world is people.



I positively agree. I dislike and am thoroughly disappointed with many people I encounter on a daily basis. I'm for euthanasia and many other taboo topics. However, what I proposed was a CREDO. A personal standard. A thought.

The element of subjectiveness only truly comes into play if these things were somehow institutionalized as law. I absolutely did not suggest that.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
SO... we move to this house and eventually my kids made friends with the neighborhood kids. One of the boys from down the street was over playing and came to me in the kitchen one afternoon.Kid was about 11. He said something to the effect that he and his dad were watching me do yard work and couldnt figure out if I was Asian or Mexican. I said Im NDN but how did you see me from way up the street like that. He said they were using his dads spotting scope.


W-T-F....

Give me the HEEBIE JEEBIES!! Yeah.. folks oughtto mind their own damned business. Im a paranoid freak now and dont do yard work in the front yard anymore! LOL!



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

zeroBelief
Notice this thread is in the PHILOSOPHY section?

Not the LEGAL section?

Notice I didn't say "EVERYONE HAS TO THINK THIS WAY?"


It is wrong headed philosophically and legally. The fundamental principle is that your right to pursue your happiness, however you evaluate it, provided your pursuit doesn't violate the same right of others, should not be infringed by the state. It doesn't matter whether the state or (junk or real) science declares that your pursuit is harming you -- that is entirely your business.

The above fundamental principle is a special case of more general harmonization unfolding in universe at all levels. For example, biological systems do not violate laws of physics pursued by their building blocks, atoms and molecules. Generally, the harmonization operates by higher levels accepting the fundamental rules and laws of operation of the lower systems or their components. We as individuals are to society what molecules are to the cells and our inherent urge and creator given right to pursue our happiness as we see fit should not be overridden by the state or social organism (via tyranny of majority), provided it doesn't harm the same right of other individuals.



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Advantage
SO... we move to this house and eventually my kids made friends with the neighborhood kids. One of the boys from down the street was over playing and came to me in the kitchen one afternoon.Kid was about 11. He said something to the effect that he and his dad were watching me do yard work and couldnt figure out if I was Asian or Mexican. I said Im NDN but how did you see me from way up the street like that. He said they were using his dads spotting scope.


W-T-F....

Give me the HEEBIE JEEBIES!! Yeah.. folks oughtto mind their own damned business. Im a paranoid freak now and dont do yard work in the front yard anymore! LOL!



Yeah, I see your point. Perhaps 6ft privacy fences are in order? My backyard is full of mature fruit trees, and a six foot fence, there's only spot where anyone can see much of anything.

I enjoy taking my dog out in my undies in the back yard in a rather populated subdivision...the way I personally see it, if the one neighbor who could see me in that one spot from their 2nd floor window had a heart attack from the grotesque site...well...serves them right.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join