It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Illegal Now For Homeless To Use Blankets?

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Sounds to me like if you're homeless, you should panhandle enough to go to the hardware store and buy a 1lb hammer. Because the penalty for breaking and entering probably isn't much worse than that for being out on the street. May as well make your own door to shelter on some abandoned or neglected property than be stuck outside when the weather is bad.

This is pretty much the option that those with authority will unintentionally end up encouraging. Which is irony at it's best, because people will start doing things a lot more destructive than panhandling or kicking back in some makeshift shelter. (Probably explains the higher amount of crazy sounding "zombie" biter cases too. Trying to starve people out isn't going to work.) It's likely better to let the homeless have some place of their own. So what if it looks bad, it's not like anyone is giving these people much in the way of other options.




posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by nosacrificenofreedom
 


Yes, until they're on your doorstep, urinating and setting fires outside your door. It's very easy to take the high moral ground when you don't have to put up with it outside your own home, because when the homeless woman I mentioned in my previous post, decides to bunk down in my close, believe me, I do not feel safe in my own home and then in the morning, you need to disinfect the stairs because of the smell of urine! Not pleasant I can assure you!



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Bobaganoosh
It is just a continuation. Just another angle of attack on humanity. The disgusting act of marginalizing those who exhibit any level of compassion for less fortunate souls.

Business deserves to be hurt. The blight and decay of our society is a glaring reminder that the talking heads and their delusional optimism is a blatant propagandized mistruth.

These same vile "silent majority" would be the first to call for the merciful killing of undesirables so as to sweep the lie away and never be faced with their own fraud.



Just to add to your beautiful thoughts.....which I happen to agree with 100%...

Our sacred illusions are like the cows in a hindu's field...don't poke them...feed them...keep them warm...and don't dare eat them....


We prop up this thin crust of "reality" we've created as a society with cruelty, unjustness, and most repugnant of all, a sense of it all being just plain "right".

Two comments I've made earlier this morning on other threads...apply to my feelings here regarding society...and in many ways...humanity as a whole....



"We" sicken me.

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit."


I'm not out to win friends with these thoughts or sentiments....I'm simply letting my thoughts be heard.


And last but not least....I'm really left wanting to know...of these "business owners" who don't want the unwashed homeless keeping warm with blankets in front of their buildings.....

How many of them are self-professed "Christians" ?

Is this truly what "God" or "Jesus Christ" ask of them ?



Somehow...and I am no master of theology.....I don't think it is.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


it isn't society that has the issue here. At least, not directly (although indirectly you and I share in ALL of the blame).

I, too, have comments from another thread that are pertinent here: if we would bring home our troops and slash military spending in half (only half), we could provide "free" healthcare to every human living in the US. I would bet you could also provide food, but that is another topic.

The problem with homelessness is that it isn't typically a choice. People who choose homelessness (and are of sound mind) will typically have a specific mindset. The laws created won't affect them, as they are able to move to a different part of the state/county and find respite.

The people who will be affected are the ones who are just too sick (mental illness) to do anything about it. Other than be harassed and arrested.

This relates right to the heart of "gun violence", as it is the same mentally ill people not recieving adequate treatment. We displaced publicly available mental health beds with forensic mental health beds. Meaning that we now have the people in prison taking up those beds. My wife works in such a place, with patients who murdered and ate their children (mixed in with patients who pretended to be crazy to beat a rap).

It is all about how we treat the mentally ill. I saw the same lady take a poop in the same spot in San Antonio on a half dozen occassions. Right on the side of Jefferson St. on Travis Park. Right there, in plain view. We talked about it in the office for a few moments and it occured to me that nothing we do would help her condition. She is far, far to mentally ill to recieve help.

I am sickened just like you. Because ALL OF US choose to ignore the fact that we spend almost $1trillion/year to kill people for oil while at home we let the mentally starve and suffer.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


I wish I could send my occasional lodger to your house...I'm sure you'd love her! I would be interested in your opinion after she's spent a couple of nights outside your door!



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Many people are 1 paycheck away from that sidewalk and more joining them everyday.The homeless are treated like animals in this country.A national disgrace not to help them,much less attack them with feudal era type laws.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

destination now
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


I wish I could send my occasional lodger to your house...I'm sure you'd love her! I would be interested in your opinion after she's spent a couple of nights outside your door!







Life is difficult because of that homeless person. Because of the smell of humanity. Because of it's ugliness. Because of it's inconvenience.

I'm sorry.

Let me go get you another Iron Bru and open up another package of crisps to top off that take-away.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

zeroBelief

destination now
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


I wish I could send my occasional lodger to your house...I'm sure you'd love her! I would be interested in your opinion after she's spent a couple of nights outside your door!







Life is difficult because of that homeless person. Because of the smell of humanity. Because of it's ugliness. Because of it's inconvenience.

I'm sorry.

Let me go get you another Iron Bru and open up another package of crisps to top off that take-away.


I think you missed the propensity of that homeless person, who exhibits all the signs/symptoms of mental illness, to light fires inside the building.

You can't really put a mentally ill persons comfort over the life/safety of a building full of people.

What I took from the lass and her story was that Scotland sucks about as bad as the US at taking care of the mentally ill.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   

zeroBelief

destination now
reply to post by zeroBelief
 


I wish I could send my occasional lodger to your house...I'm sure you'd love her! I would be interested in your opinion after she's spent a couple of nights outside your door!







Life is difficult because of that homeless person. Because of the smell of humanity. Because of it's ugliness. Because of it's inconvenience.

I'm sorry.

Let me go get you another Iron Bru and open up another package of crisps to top off that take-away.


Okay so now you're trying to win an argument by utilising stereotypes...hate to break it, but I think Irn Bru is disgusting, and I don't eat crisps or takeaway food because I have multiple allergies.

But believe me, once you've stepped outside your door into a pool of someone else's urine and been woken up by the smell of smoke and your realise that a drunk person has just set fire to a bunch of newspapers inside a building on the 3rd floor where you and your child live, you would have a different opinion.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Totally agree, this woman cannot look after herself, she cannot maintain a tenancy or even live in a hostel. She really needs to be in hospital with constant supervision, but the UK's care in the community put paid to that



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Don't have time to read all the post tex but how did i do?

Am i apologizing or are you?



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Another_Nut
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Don't have time to read all the post tex but how did i do?

Am i apologizing or are you?


Ya know...i am laughing right now actually.


It was me. I didn't get what you said. Besides, you would have nothing to apologize for (unless you zinged another at me that went over my head).



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Ty TeX

And i thank your state for being so welcoming

U2ud if you didn't get ill resend after work
edit on pm220142812America/ChicagoSat, 08 Feb 2014 12:45:46 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

destination now
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Totally agree, this woman cannot look after herself, she cannot maintain a tenancy or even live in a hostel. She really needs to be in hospital with constant supervision, but the UK's care in the community put paid to that



Didn't it though. The word's 'care in the communtiy' mean 'dangerous nutter left to roam the streets' where I live. We do need to come up with a system to deal with the persistant pains in the asses who need caring for.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

tinner07
Ok here is my perspective on that.

I live in Michigan, snowing to beat hell. I want to vacation in florida but can't afford the resorts. Can I set up tent in your front yard? No.

Business owners are the same. People have compassion but you get people sleeping in front of a business its going to hurt business.





Fk the business, help the homeless. What kinda a fkn society are we living in here, for fk sake man!!!



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

chiefsmom
reply to post by tinner07
 


Ok, I get that, and agree to an extent. (Not the snow part, I'm with you there!)
But does this mean the homeless can't cover up, in a box in an alley, out of the way, bothering nobody?

Is the city going to approve opening more shelters, for the homeless to go? I doubt it.
edit on 7-2-2014 by chiefsmom because: addition


Most alleyways are used for emergency exits, delivery trucks, entrances to janitors flats, emergency vehicles. Sleeping under a pile of blankets or boxes isn't going to be very safe. Nor is sleeping so close to the urban ground.

I used to work in an IT department in a downtown office block. For one particular week, we kept having the problem with our mainframe overheating to the extent that bubbles were forming in the cooling system. Engineers came round to check the racks, the pipes, the heat exchangers then went outside to check the cooling fans in the car park. Some homeless guy had built a tent around these fans. While his little room was nice and toasty, our computer system had melted down. We had to install a metal cage around those fans to prevent this from happening again.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Oh wow - you COMPLETELY missed my point to be honest, and then turned around and claimed I missed yours lol. Brilliant. Let's work through this, with my 'inner intellectual' (LOL WTF are you on about?), and clear up this mess.

Firstly, please understand, that your original post and 'study' pose a serious problem to me. Why? Because you are bringing mine, and the rest of humanity's, integrity into doubt - because you obviously must not have a strong sense of integrity yourself (otherwise you wouldn't be flaunting off the study as some universal truth). So, I have two options really:

1) Argue my integrity
2) Accept your proposition that humanity is eternally bound by their bodily functions and cannot overcome their brain/'nature'.


Do you think people like to admit to their human flaws? No, they don't. So there would never be that point of "I changed...the money". People have egos, and those egos tend to rule them.

The study I provided, it isn't about me. I am the man I am. I am not wealthy, as I choose to avoid wealth. I am successful, and I know why: because I am smart, and have had wonderful opportunities in my life. Everyone is smart, so the differene is my opportunities. But like i said...it isn't about me, its about human nature. And that human nature is the same, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not. That is, unless you have a study (and not just an uncomfortable feeling) that can support your claim.


You evidently didn't read my reply too carefully since I myself stated that people don't like admitting to their flaws or judging themselves. This is exactly where the issue lies and it is why your study provides the results it does.

"People have ego's, and those ego's tend to rule them" - EXACTLY. THANK YOU! This is the fundamental point of my reply. You see, the difference between you and I is that I see the ego as a weakness, as a low-level tool of the brain that can and should be overridden by your higher awareness. If you believe you cannot mold or eliminate undesirables from your ego then we clearly have opposing views on the very fundamental basis of this argument and hence we may as well stop here. Though I don't think this is the case, since you say:

"'TEND TO RULE THEM"

Therefore you are aware that some people can act over their ego and eliminate parts of it they don't 'like'. You are NOT your ego. We can both agree on this, right?

I never said it's about you. The reason I referred to you is to attempt to provoke an answer out of you, to make you extrapolate this study to other things in life and see if it holds for you. I can think of plenty of cases similar to the study where I would not follow this pattern of 'human nature' that everyone else does. Does that mean I'm a flawed human? My 'human nature' is incomplete? Or does it mean I have different conditioned behaviours to you? Or does it mean I'm lying to myself? Your study would suggest I'm lying to myself.

Why do you keep claiming that human nature is the same for everyone? Human nature is a flawed concept for crying out loud. The nature vs nurture debate will never end. How can you claim with 100% confidence that this study reflects the same human nature we have all had since DAY 1 rather than the conditioned behaviour of the selection of humans used for that study? Have you ever thought about that? Or just because it is a 'study' by 'scientists' it must be true and I must have a study to refute it? LOL.

If I told you my field of work you would laugh (or cry potentially) - considering I am getting the feeling that you assume me to be very disconnected from science. Funnily enough, I quoted this study to some of my very intellectual and scientific friends and the majority are not a fan of the way it was conducted or the implications of the results. But of course, it must be universally true because it's science and we love science!


DazDaKing

What an utter load of NONSENSE. Yes, that theory holds for children because they are sponges. The idea is that by the time you're an adult you've had various life experiences and outlooks and can be 'trusted' with the control of your body and mind to a finer tuned degree. But applying this concept to adults is a different ball game - it is nonsensical completely. If someones going to suddenly be a prick when they're rich or advantaged...then THAT IS THEIR CHARACTER.

Bigfurrytexan
Except I provided a study, by real scientists, that proves you wrong.


How does it prove me wrong? And what is with the 'real scientist' point? Are you claiming I have no right to apply critical thinking to your study because I am not a 'real scientist'?!

I'm not claiming the study is nonsense. You are really hard to talk with because you're not seeing the actual points I'm making but you're taking little sentences of mine and basing your points around that. So let me restart:

You claim that this study shows that us, 'normal', non-filthy rich and working/middle class people will be just as self-righteous and potentially dark-hearted as those in power, if we had the power. You claim this is because it is human nature as this 'study' shows so. I say, how can you conclude with such confidence that the study shows HUMAN NATURE and not the conditioned behaviour or underlying nature of those SPECIFIC PEOPLE. You cannot deduce this with certainty. Was the study conducted around the world? Was it conducted on a full range of demographic? Etc.

You're effectively saying that if I took part in the study I would also feel like I deserved to win. Sorry mate, but to me that's nonsense. I know I wouldn't. This is why I brought YOU into question, because your original post/study brings ME into question (unintentionally of course).


Yup. We live in a world of fools. And you and I are among their ranks.
It seems you are ironically missing the whole point about ego. To the point of hubris.
.

NO! For god's sake this is annoying. I am not missing the point about ego, you are missing MY POINT about ego. I am arguing that the ego is a highly flexible thing (with the ability to take over a person, yes) that can change with social status, culture, technological advancements and so forth. The ego can change throughout the ages. The ego of a man 5000 years ago may not contain the same thoughts as the ego of a man today. If you think that is the case, then I rest my argument as it is pointless. However, the ego is ultimately at your mercy, and therefore it is not a form of permanent human nature that can and always will make people do things blindly with no sense of self identity or integrity beyond the immediate desires of the ego. What a sad view to hold of the human race.

And this is not my own uncomfortable feelings. I studied psychology in-depth for 3 years as one of my subjects at higher education in England. I had extensive hour long debates about this with my teacher at the time and we generally came to the same conclusion. I honestly believe my viewpoint. I'm sorry if you think that is me being ignorant about the ego.


DazDaKing
So for your little study - I say all it does is highlight the inherent problem with the majority of the adult population on the Earth right now. A bunch of people who don't truly know who they are and simply exist in a Limbo state awaiting the moment they can pounce and get back at the world because they 'deserve' so. Like the kid who got bullied in school and now he can't think about anything else than getting his own back on the world. Low level states of the human consciousness - ultimately self-obsession and ultimate self-righteousness. This is the same mentality that allows humans to kill others for the sake of a ideology/religion/country and claim it was an act of right-doing.

Bigfatfurrytexan
Wait....a minute ago it was all nonsense. Now you are admitting that it highlights a darker part of human nature?


ARGH! Bigfatfurrytexan, PLEASE READ MY POSTS CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING SUCH ASSUMPTIONS. At no point in that paragraph do I use the term human nature. It is a mentality. General mentality will change with time as it always has. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong. History shows this clearly.


Are you talking about the topic, or me? I don't think you know me....

....it would be nice if we could dig that inner intellectual out of you so that you could discuss the topic instead of making up your own little story about who I am and what I would "probably" do.


I asked you a question, which would in fact help clear up my understanding of how you actually perceive this study and 'human nature'. It would have been much easier, quicker, and beneficial to the topic of human nature for you to answer my question rather than take a defensive stance.



You really are clueless about human nature, aren't you? Have you live on this planet more than 20 years? "Modern humans" is a statement that displays ego. Humans are no different today than 1000 years ago, other than our relative ability to live in modern times (technological knowledge, etc). We are the same damn dirty apes we always have been.


Ah yes, the last paragraph includes a nice, direct insult. Beautiful. You are completely and utterly wrong, sorry. Humans are not the same today as they were 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000.....200,000 years ago. Do you ever think about the difference between human nature and conditioned behaviour? Or do you mix the two together? So, in that case, human nature must change constantly as new conditioned behaviours are adopted. Was it human nature 1000 years ago to find a 'mate' via the internet? Was that part of the human ego? Was that part of our inherent human nature from day 1 that apparently controls us indefinitely? Was it human nature 1000 years ago to be able to communicate with people across the world easily and quickly? Was it possible to compare yourself to billions of humans? Did humans, 200,000 years ago, understand in their 'human nature' what is meant to work for a corporation 5-days a week with no real choice?

You cannot claim we are the same dirty apes we always have been with such confidence. That is all my point has ever really been. I think it goes deeper than just one set of human nature 'laws' that govern us and always will do. I think it is a flexible system, that changes based on where we are in history and the individual themselves. Some people's ego could tell them to steal, but they will choose against it because of their higher moral principles. There is a constant conflict between the ego/'human nature' and the 'true self'. That is my opinion.

Ultimately, my friend, you original post puts me (and I assume others) in an awkward position. I am basically presented with two options by your post:

1] Accept that I am ruled by some set of behavioural laws we call 'human nature' that I can't overcome and will drive me to do things I perceive as 'bad' currently in the future if I had the right circumstances.

2] Argue my integrity and sense of self that goes beyond the immediate physical system of an ego.

Would you have respected me more if I shut up?

Peace.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DazDaKing
 


It would likely help you to understand that we both have very, very similar viewpoints. We are just seeing something different.

i am not religious or anything like that. But I have spent my entire life studying religion (it fascinates me for some reason), and have deist beliefs (there is "something", i just don't have a real concept of what that something is). I say that to say this: along the way I was highly impacted by Buddhism. The control of the ego....this is the heart of buddhism. Having spent years practicing on "mindful action", i do have a fairly good command over my ego (although i have identified a couple dozen traits over the last month or so that show I still have lots of work to do).

From this vantage point, I see many of the weaknesses of others, and their struggles. The vantage point I refer to is having the experience struggling with those things myself. Sociopathic traits, however, are something I haven't struggled with much as I am highly empathetic and can't tolerate negative emotions very well when I am the source of them.

That said....I witness the way people tend to treat each other. How the people who make less money tend to be more communal in their outlook. They depend on and rely on each other for things like a cup of sugar, a babysitter, a ride to work, etc. People with more wealth tend to not do this. They tend to take a more independant viewpoint, and demand that others be "strong" like them.

I then see people who "strike it rich". Lottery winners are a good example you may be familiar with. But locally, we have "new" millionaires because of the wind turbines (they pay $25k apiece plus 3% annual commission, and many farmers/ranchers have hundreds of them on their land now) and oil. Most ranchers nowadays have two corporate entities: 1 for the livestock operations, and one for the energy operations. The term "money changes people" is a common term for a reason, and I see this personally.

Now, not everyone is this way (which you point out). You may have a higher moral fiber. I don't know, but given how intelligent you seem to be I would suspect that you at least believe you do for good reason. Me? I would like to think I do. But without ever having a test, how would I know?

In any event, I stand by my assertion. We may have an impasse. Who knows. But given what I have seen with my own eyes, and my own lifes experience (and context), the study was spot on. Since I deal with some very wealthy people day to day, having that perspective answers many questions for me. Like why a billionaire would rather sue for insignificant issues instead of just paying their bills. Which takes us right back to ego.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by DazDaKing
 


It would likely help you to understand that we both have very, very similar viewpoints. We are just seeing something different.

i am not religious or anything like that. But I have spent my entire life studying religion (it fascinates me for some reason), and have deist beliefs (there is "something", i just don't have a real concept of what that something is). I say that to say this: along the way I was highly impacted by Buddhism. The control of the ego....this is the heart of buddhism. Having spent years practicing on "mindful action", i do have a fairly good command over my ego (although i have identified a couple dozen traits over the last month or so that show I still have lots of work to do).

From this vantage point, I see many of the weaknesses of others, and their struggles. The vantage point I refer to is having the experience struggling with those things myself. Sociopathic traits, however, are something I haven't struggled with much as I am highly empathetic and can't tolerate negative emotions very well when I am the source of them.

That said....I witness the way people tend to treat each other. How the people who make less money tend to be more communal in their outlook. They depend on and rely on each other for things like a cup of sugar, a babysitter, a ride to work, etc. People with more wealth tend to not do this. They tend to take a more independant viewpoint, and demand that others be "strong" like them.

I then see people who "strike it rich". Lottery winners are a good example you may be familiar with. But locally, we have "new" millionaires because of the wind turbines (they pay $25k apiece plus 3% annual commission, and many farmers/ranchers have hundreds of them on their land now) and oil. Most ranchers nowadays have two corporate entities: 1 for the livestock operations, and one for the energy operations. The term "money changes people" is a common term for a reason, and I see this personally.

Now, not everyone is this way (which you point out). You may have a higher moral fiber. I don't know, but given how intelligent you seem to be I would suspect that you at least believe you do for good reason. Me? I would like to think I do. But without ever having a test, how would I know?

In any event, I stand by my assertion. We may have an impasse. Who knows. But given what I have seen with my own eyes, and my own lifes experience (and context), the study was spot on. Since I deal with some very wealthy people day to day, having that perspective answers many questions for me. Like why a billionaire would rather sue for insignificant issues instead of just paying their bills. Which takes us right back to ego.


Do you know what, Bigfatfurrytexan, thank you. You cleared it up for me. I'm sorry, I took a slightly aggressive stance towards you in my previous post because I missed the subtle difference between what I perceived you to be saying and what you actually were.

You see the ego or our 'human nature' as something that will come out and test us, against our will, as effectively it is a system based around the promotion of self-survival and the preservation of self-worth. The difference is, some are aware (by whatever factor) of these egotistical processes and desires and can exercise their true will over it, while others cannot as easily and are 'swept away' by the ego or this collection of conditioned and 'natural' behaviours. I agree with you - 100%. I'm sorry I didn't see your point like that straight away.

I guess it's because I've seen a lot of people use a similar form of point to what you made but then use that point to justify such actions as natural and the desired outcome of what a 'human' is. On the contrary, I think it is something we should fight from the moment we understand one of the most (if not the most) important human emotion - empathy :].

I am also like you in religious beliefs. I usually use the term 'agnostic', but I'm not a fan of the labels as it is. I have a strong feeling there is 'more to this' than we currently like to accept. Likewise, I can't claim what it is! I also spent some time, with a good friend of mine, following Buddhist teachings and stuff such as the Tao. Except, I felt some of those teachings went slightly too far. Things such as attempting to not get attached to other humans in an effort to save future damage to your psyche and ego. I believe attachment between humans is all that really matters in this world. I've made some stupid mistakes (especially in regards to the ladies) and got myself attached too many times, even when I was well aware that what I was sharing with someone was not going to progress beyond primal physical attachment. But, to me, I don't regret that, as I see my 'loving' or 'heart on sleeve' aspect as something very true to me and it is not something I ever want to 'numb away' via the manipulation of my inherent nature.

It is an interesting topic none the less and always will be. I honestly believe that in the age we are living in we are having subconscious/egotistical desires pushed onto us purposely that may have not 'naturally' formed/reared themselves (or to the same extent) in today's world. The prevalence of racial tension in the west again is a prime example of this I believe, as well as the general fear mongering going on and even more evidently the agenda of the modern music industry.

My worry always is that if we begin to accept, collectively as a race, that we are bound to our 'human natures' or such, we allow whatever power that is to insert 'conditioned behaviours' into us that we can confuse for natural/'normal' ways of thinking and slowly but surely be 'brainwashed' in a sense. Do you know what I mean? This is why I usually get quite heated up when I think someone is arguing such a point because I cannot allow humanity to descend to that route - I honestly do not trust what is happening across the world in terms of ideologies being subliminally spoon-fed into our psyches.

Anyway, I'm glad I understand you better now and vice versa. None the less, your study still worries me
.

Peace.
edit on 8-2-2014 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by DazDaKing
 


It worries the hell outta me, too. Being a parent, it is studies like that giving me the impetus to guide my own in the proper direction.

As a human, "human nature" is no excuse except for the most dull of minds (i can't find it in my to hold someone of reduced intellectual capacity to the same standard as myself). As a non human animal, I have varying viewpoints on what I expect. A snake....he will be a snake. He will bite you, and that is just what snakes do. A dog, however....there is some deeper intellectual processes going on with a dog, and I expect them to be nonviolent. Unfortunately, sometimes my expectations are not met. LOL

The human is two distinctive parts: the physical, and the rest. LOL, yea, not very exact. But think of it like this: you have the human animal (our body) and the human being (everything else....or the mind, which I believe tends to reside external from the body, but that is another topic altogether). The challenge for man is to have the human being triumph over the human animal.

This may not be the goal of our existence. I have no idea why we are here. But I can definitively say that if I must live this life, I want to do it on my terms, not a bag of meats terms.

RE: buddhism....it is why I moved away from buddhism. I thought it morose that the point of buddhism was to conquer the ego, but on the other hand eschewing the physical is meant to protect the ego. Now, "protect the ego" is not directly stated. But your assessment is correct in that "happiness" (as referenced in common buddhist thought) is nothing more than an ego that is not being damaged.

I don't wish to conquer a challenge against a weakened opponent. There is no honor in that. While I do like to choke down the ego, at the same time I also tend to take some pride in being a tenacious hardass (which feeds the ego).

In any event, I saw the limitation of buddhism. It was less a "map to happiness" and more a trick to denature the human being and make it less prone to damage.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join