| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| Idea | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed May 15th, 2013 12:20 pm |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I woke this morning with the boy named Josiah at the point where he is going to do something. I want to incorporate the idea of how accurate information is the enemy of criminals. I have this idea that the old man with the Jag U ARE is being targeted by Josiah as a possible source of income, as Josiah pretends to be a Law Enforcement Agent after Liberty Day and after Victory in the War on Falsehood. Josiah gets this idea of faking an attempt to steal the car, a very high priced car, so as to then pretend to foil the theft of the car, and then collect the bounty offered by the insurance company. The idea here is to show how anyone can get these ideas, ideas that tempt a person to turn to crime, and then the idea is to convey how the math does not work out in a person's brain, when it is too risky, when information is too accurate too often. I had the idea of having Josiah check his el-dee (LD), for information on how easy or how difficult it would be to get away with such a thing, and then, perhaps, a story line that involves Steve, the professor, being alerted to such a search made by Josiah, so Steve goes out to monitor his student in the field. I don't know how the story would actually play out, not until I get back into writing mode, but this idea I thought was worth jotting down.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed May 15th, 2013 01:04 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
I have this idea now of working to keep the characters away from any mentioning of any importance of a National government, and instead there needs to be greater emphasis on State government POWER, competition with other State government POWER, and very little of any concern at all for a defensive POWER that is "National," or in place as a means to defend a NATION from other NATIONS.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed May 15th, 2013 05:04 pm |
|
3rd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Ideas during work and lunch: 1. Josiah represents very local concerns and a youthful innocence, and ignorance, concerning moral laws, or moral truth. 2. Mary represents the family, and impeccable morality, and State concerns. 3. Number 1 represents the narrow gap between good and bad, and is involved in Worldly matters of moral law. 4. Steve represents accuracy and wisdom and fits into a stage to be set for connecting to Mars and the work required to produce human kind as a multi-planet species.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed May 15th, 2013 06:14 pm |
|
4th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
I got confused in the wording a bit. Morals and morality are consequences of education and/or knowledge (latter is more important). When you write 'moral truth' - what do you mean? What is 'immoral truth' then? And what is 'impeccable morality'? Impeccable by whom? And who can certainly decide whether it is actually impeccable (with 'common' sense being quite uncommon)? Maybe 'relevant' would be a better word? As I understand the nature of things - morality is born through knowledge and then taught to future generations to bring them 'up to speed' quickly so they can move further during their lifespan. Morality being a direct consequence is not a relative value. So it's understanding of morality what varies. Certain abilities can only be developed through understanding and knowledge. And that knowledge and understanding is what limits use of these abilities to moral choices. The only other way to gain access to these abilities is parasitism. And parasitism of this scale produces much destruction and likely to rid world of that particular parasite faster in fact. But I m running my mouth too much again... Don't mind little old me.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed May 15th, 2013 07:55 pm |
|
5th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, What I mean by the use of the word moral truth is along the lines of demonstrating how life persists against all power that works to destroy life. If life persists, in any case, then that, to me, is the measure of moral truth, as if moral truth is being demonstrated as moral truth, as life persists, the way it persists, is a demonstration of moral truth. I can illustrate moral truth, as I see it, whereby someone (a life form) intending to destroy something, and then begins to do so with the willful employment of deception; meanwhile another life form intervenes on behalf of the targeted life form, and the intervening life form informs the targeted victim of the deception, and the moral truth is then demonstrated as an avoidance of the intended destruction intended to be follow through, or executed, by the deceiver. I suppose I could work harder to convey the intended message with greater effect, or perhaps you get the message, but my guess is that I fail once again. What is 'immoral truth' then? Knowing a living being exists, and a living being is creating deception so as to cause the destruction of life, is an accurate perception of an actual fact, a demonstrable fact, and the person who is employing deception so as to cause the destruction of life is acting immorally, and the person accurately perceiving that immoral use of deception to cause the destruction of life can see immorality, in actual fact, and I suppose that could be an immoral discovery or an immoral truth? I don't see the point of pairing the two words together, as if saying there can be a moral deception that intends to destroy life. I've been through this before, and I can explain further, as these things, in my view, are confused when deception is invented, produced, and maintained by those who do the inventing, producing, and maintaining of deception, and of course by those who are victim to such willful use of connections in between living beings. It is very difficult to unravel the confusion which persists because of the willful employment of deception as a means of destroying life. Impeccable by whom? I get the feeling as if you are on a witch hunt, and I am the suspected witch. What I mean by impeccable morality in the context of character development within a novel is the idea of exemplifying someone who employs their power of life in such a way as to connect to other living beings and increase the quality of life for the other being connected to, and at the same time the result of the connection is a lower of the cost of life for the living being being connected to by the character being developed in the novel; a character who willfully employes their power to accomplish those goals. And who can certainly decide whether it is actually impeccable (with 'common' sense being quite uncommon)? Maybe 'relevant' would be a better word? If you do not share my view of morality, as is most likely since you don't even share my views on perception, and since my views on perception aid me in building my views on morality, then of course, all things are relevant, and nothing is shared between us, as far as any sense of morality, but my book is not meant to enforce my views upon anyone, my intent is to offer my views competitively for anyone to judge on their own, without me resorting to willfully deception, without me resorting to willful threats of violence, and without me resorting to willful violence upon any living beings who may be innocent of any of the same aggressive, willful, immoral, actions. The only other way to gain access to these abilities is parasitism. I use the word crime. My measure of immorality is such that anyone willfully employing deceit, threats, or violence upon a targeted innocent (innocent of crime so named) is demonstrating immorality, or crime. Crime = immorality = willful destruction of life = parasitism (I suppose) What must be done by a parasite in order for a parasite to accomplish the goal of paraitism? Can a parasite offer an accurate description of the goal of parasitims and then have volunteers ready and willing to become victims of parasitims, or does a parasite rely upon deception, threats, and violence as a means of gaining hosts from which to destroy the life of the hosts?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu May 16th, 2013 01:05 pm |
|
6th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
If you do not share my view of morality, as is most likely since you don't even share my views on perception Oh, Joe, mon ami, but I do share your view on perception. If anything I generalize further and I've explained that already. The only thing that I'm complaining about is impression I get about your attitude towards it and expression of it. So let's not get into a conversation about 'different' moralities. Moral choices are not relevant to person, they are relevant to the truth. Moral being 'right' and immoral - 'wrong'. I get the feeling as if you are on a witch hunt, and I am the suspected witch. You can be quite a witch. Remember in supposed medieval age mediums were split into two categories - those who bent over for the Church (also known as saints and whatnot) and those who didn't (also known as mages, witches and other heretic scum). Although I'm not on a witch hunt, I'm not even picking at you. What I do though - is pushing for clarity, regardless of whether it is my English or your explanations fail. But anyway. What must be done by a parasite in order for a parasite to accomplish the goal of paraitism? What is the goal of parasitism? One good question. Let's view it from a perspective of a parasite. We can easily distinguish 2 types of reasoning for parasitic activities: wish to live and wish to fulfill desires. Former generally comes into play at later stages of parasitic existence. Latter though is how it starts. Desire in its core is the need of entity, either properly or improperly understood. Even without outside will to form a parasitic thinking this exact thinking can form given there are according circumstances. If we pretend that this social parasite is not in way influenced by others, then we can say that this initial desire of his (misunderstood need) forms a false reflex. Acquisition of power fulfilling that desire grants triggers a joy reflex intended for proper acquisition of power. Thus parasite establishes an addiction. Eventually addiction drives the parasite for a stronger dose. Parasite develops more efficient ways of getting it. Eventually he either dies from not being able to get a dose, or he understands that this is actually the only thing keeping him alive and well. From that point forth parasitism becomes the only way parasite can live. If at any point our parasite becomes a valuable part of social parasite system, he can better understand where everything is going. the problem is that any higher parasite cares not about any parasite lower, essentially every parasite is a slave to others. And whatever hopes a parasite has - his demise is inevitable. What highest social parasites understand is that their very existence ultimately leads to destruction of everything, but at the point they are able to grasp this, they no longer care about that. they feed themselves with false hope that they can be masters of the universe once the only thing left is them themselves. Can a parasite offer an accurate description of the goal of parasitims and then have volunteers ready and willing to become victims of parasitims, or does a parasite rely upon deception, threats, and violence as a means of gaining hosts from which to destroy the life of the hosts? Social parasite is a parasite because he never truly knows, just assumes what suits him better. So deception, willful or not, is how it works for them. P.S. So far there is one certainty about you I noticed. You seem to enjoy long, comma-induced sentences. Not yet true Turgenev-like, but definitely trying. ))) P.P.S. Ah, yes, about the topic. I understand what you wanted to say. Still, I wouldn't use the same words you did, but who am I to judge. Last edited on Thu May 16th, 2013 01:09 pm by |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu May 16th, 2013 05:14 pm |
|
7th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey is as good a judge as any, it seems to me. Parasitism, so described, sounds like crime to me. I do not do this: If we pretend that this social parasite is not in way influenced by others, then we can say that this initial desire of his (misunderstood need) forms a false reflex. I do not see the point in doing that, since "influenced by others," is measurable in any case whatsoever, even if the criminal is measurable as a sociopath, meaning someone who "cares" as much for another person as a non-sociopath may "care" about a grain of sand, or a roach, or a rat, or a maggot, or a chair, and yet, despite this concept of "care" being absent in the sociopath, none-the-less there is that power of influence, to sweep away the grain of sand, inspiration at work, to crush the roach, to eat the rat, or maggot, or to sit upon the chair, use it, or burn it for fuel, there is influence or there is no contact. Even if contact is purely accidental between the sociopath and the thing being contacted accidentally at first, there is then willful employment of power by the sociopath to continue contact, or to avoid further contact, and if the choice is to avoid further contact, then that is not within the context of parasitism, or crime, rather that is the avoidance of contact - it seems to me. So my next question concerning this parasitism stuff, that sounds a lot like crime to me, concerns the effective tools used by the parasites, and I am seeking specifics, precise, effective, expedient, sharp, tools, used, to reach the goals aimed to be reached by the parasites in parasitism. I know of 3 such tools used by criminals. 1. Deceit 2. Threats 3. Violence.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 17th, 2013 12:43 pm |
|
8th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
I understand why you would use the word 'crime'. In Russian dictionary would give you the word 'преступление', which comes from 'преступать', meaning 'crossing' the boundary, or the line. Maybe it's just your preference to use 'crime'. Social parasitism, however, denotes the phenomena quite accurately I find. to my understanding 'crime' is less enveloping of a term to use. but maybe that's just my English fails me as per usual. As for sharp, precise, effective, expedient..., dramatic, edgy, hurr definition words - I'm not the one to provide you those. Not in English anyway. You say 'deceit'. Yet deceit is not as easy as it looks. Parasitism starts from deceit (including self-deceit) willful and/or accidental. Yet it doesn't appear to me as sharp, precise, effective... term overall. You say 'threats'. Yet threats can be seen as violence, cause what are threats essentially? And threats can be a deceit, can't they? You say 'violence'. Yet any forceful projection can be described as violence. Terms are vague. You might have them nailed down to the sharp, precise, effective... And I even might totally understand what you mean, but! The book will require more 'intuitive' explanations if you desire to convey what you mean to broader audience. At least that would maximize your chances I feel. Now how big of system of terms regarding 'tools' of social parasites do you really want me to lay out for you. How much sharp, precise, effective... should it be?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 17th, 2013 02:31 pm |
|
9th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, Again, possible wrongly, I feel as if I am the target of a witch hunt, and you are doing the targeting. It can be established that we do not share the same meanings of words, and from that established agreement in that view of that state of being that way, we can either move in a direction that establishes agreeable meanings for words, or we can move away from that goal, or we can just argue for the sake of it. It takes two to tango. I prefer not to argue. If a crime is perpetrated by a criminal upon an innocent victim, and words exist so as to describe such things actually happening, then the crime is defined by the criminal, and the victim fails to avoid that definition. As this phenomenon is being defined by you, this parasitim, defined in such a way as to accomplish a task of conveying that perception you have of that phenomenon to me, where that phenomenon makes sense to me, we may find exactly where it makes sense to me, in such a way as to agree with you. It sounds like crime to me. Criminals define what crime is, not me. When I can observe a criminal perpetrating a crime, I know one, I can see it, the communication of it, in progress, is definite, precise, knowable, understandable, as it occurs in time and place. If there is any confusion as to what it is when it is what it is as it is done by the criminal upon the victim, then it is either not a crime, or there are conditions, factors, realities, things, going on that confuse it, and make it unrecognizable as a crime, yet is remains to be a crime. If a person says these words: "Quantitative Easing is the method by which The Federal Reserve accomplishes their dual mandate." I know those words to be inculpatory evidence reported by the speaker concerning a crime in progress. The speaker may not be the person who is willfully employing English as a tool used to deceive the targeted victims. I understand that some people are victims of deception, and their power of will is adversely affected by the deception, or fraud, in progress. I don't know if that helps in removing any confusion concerning the crimes that fall under the heading of deceit. Terms are vague. When I use terms, such as deceit, I am not intending to convey any vague reference at all, instead my intent is to convey a precise identification of the employment of false information to accomplish the goal of taking power away from the targeted victim. Examples can be as precise as my power to be precise is limited. Terms are symbols, how can a "term" be vague? Here is an example of the use of language so as to "be vague," which to me is merely a use of language so as to accomplish the goal of deception. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0 You say 'violence'. Yet any forceful projection can be described as violence. Terms are vague. You might have them nailed down to the sharp, precise, effective... And I even might totally understand what you mean, but! The book will require more 'intuitive' explanations if you desire to convey what you mean to broader audience. At least that would maximize your chances I feel. It is understood by me that there are many people alive today, who may be alive tomorrow, where today they prefer not to compare their viewpoints competitively with any other viewpoint, and that use of their power of will may, understandably, persist. I do not intend to target those people, to gain anything from them, and my goal is to gain feedback from the Novel, as if I am asking for help in judging the validity, the accuracy, of my current viewpoint. I hope that the words I just offered to you are words that work as a reply to your last quoted paragraph. Now how big of system of terms regarding 'tools' of social parasites do you really want me to lay out for you. How much sharp, precise, effective... should it be? What could help in getting that which I ask to get would be one tool, for a good start, just one tool. I offer an example of tools to you, and I think these are the necessary tools used by criminals. If you know of one tool used by a parasite in parasitism, then I can compare that tool used by a parasite in parasitism with the 3 essential tools that I understand to be essential tools used by a criminal when a criminal defines the meaning of a crime. 1. Deception (very specific and not at all ambiguous) 2. Threats of violence (not at all ambiguous like porn, you know it when you see it) 3. Violence (accurately measurable violence, not something misunderstood in the least) Examples of each on a scale of examples can be more effectively understood when using the worst examples of each instead of trying to convey the accurate meaning of each with examples that are marginally belonging to criminals who use those tools to accomplish those goals. Examples of each on both ends of the scale: Worst examples of each 1.__________ 2.__________ 3.__________ Least examples of each 1.__________ 2.__________ 3.__________ I can fill in the blanks after the numbers if that may help.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 17th, 2013 05:15 pm |
|
10th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
I feel as if I am the target of a witch hunt, and you are doing the targeting. Ahoy there, mateys! Main battery at the ready!! Wait till I give the order to blast that accursed witch into smitherines!!!.. Oh, wait, that's from the wrong opera... *sigh* It takes two to tango. Correction - it takes a man and a woman to tango ))). Or waltz for that matter. Terms are symbols, how can a "term" be vague? That is exactly how. What could help in getting that which I ask to get would be one tool, for a good start, just one tool. I can try to portray how I see this. I myself DO NOT categorize wrong deeds by type. Damage they do varies only in scale, nothing else. For entity any damage is hurtful, there is no 'I can afford losing this finger over that finger'. If at any point sacrifice is chosen it matter not what will be sacrificed if goal for it is achieved. What is most difficult about this approach is a measuring 'tool'. How does one compare rape with extortion in terms of damage exactly? But aside from that - there is question of methodology. I take it you separate social parasites from 'tools' they use. Yet I do not, because for me there is no point in structuring it. Reference scale of damage based upon it would be marginal at best and completely unneeded for those who are able to recognize actual values. What I'm trying to say is that this information is of secondary importance. If at any point you feel there is a requirement for this kind of precision - you probably expect your reader to already understand what makes 'wrong' wrong and 'right' right. Am I correct? Trust me, I'm not evading answering your questions by adding some examples, this is just the way I do consolidation. I think I need to first understand your principles outside of just throwing out your viewpoints for people's judgement, otherwise me throwing in examples I can throw in will be irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri May 17th, 2013 06:03 pm |
|
11th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, I was having fun until this: That is exactly how. Seriously, to me, the symbols only indicate a possible intention to be vague, or precise, or to misdirect, or to accurately direct, in each case, each symbol being used by any power to employ a symbol. I suppose a person could drop a box of symbols, and they fall on the floor, and the arrangement could then be considered vague. Terms are symbols, how can a "term" be vague? That is a question seeking a specific answer, and as far as my intention was, and still is, concerned, I seek a specific answer. You then offer a vague answer as an example of a vague answer? I offer a possible case of symbols being vague, as the person who arranged the symbols carried the symbols in a box, and then the box is dropped, and the symbols are then arranged randomly. If a person then picks up the randomly arranged symbols, places them in order, he could arrange the symbols at a point on a road, where cars can go very fast on the road, on a blind hill, where a bridge that was a bridge is now a broken bridge, which is now a certain drop to certain death for anyone traveling fast over the blind hill on the road with the arrangement of symbols. The person could arrange the symbols in such a way as to say: STOP, the bridge is out, DANGER If you are going to argue about how vague those symbols are, then you can do so without need of me. To me that is an illustration of how symbols can be arranged so as to avoid hazardous ambiguity. More to the point, those same symbols can be arranged in this way: Free Money 10 miles ahead I take it you separate social parasites from 'tools' they use. Yet I do not, because for me there is no point in structuring it. I don't understand how you arrive at the perception that I "separate social parasites from 'tools' they use. I was asking for a tool that may be used by a parasite in parasitism. What I'm trying to say is that this information is of secondary importance. If at any point you feel there is a requirement for this kind of precision - you probably expect your reader to already understand what makes 'wrong' wrong and 'right' right. Am I correct? I was trying to ask you if there is a tool used by a parasite in parasitism. I am also writing a book to compare viewpoints I have with viewpoints other people have, and if other people see "right" and "wrong" similarly to the way I see "right" and "wrong" then that will be measurable as being that, in that way, or it may not, and then I'll find out that it is not that way. Trust me, I'm not evading answering your questions by adding some examples, this is just the way I do consolidation. I think I need to first understand your principles outside of just throwing out your viewpoints for people's judgement, otherwise me throwing in examples I can throw in will be irrelevant. If you prefer not to provide a tool used by a parasite in parasitism, then I can fail to know of such a tool used by a parasite in parasitism according to you. I was smiling as a result of reading your words, it was fun, thanks.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 18th, 2013 01:17 am |
|
12th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
If you are going to argue about how vague those symbols are, then you can do so without need of me. Huh. As if I was the one to put in 'terms are symbols' as an argument... Alright, redacted. I don't understand how you arrive at the perception that I "separate social parasites from 'tools' they use. You specifically indicated deceit, threat and violence as 'tools'. Tools are things, not the person. And you seem to try and view 'tools' separately. If you prefer not to provide a tool used by a parasite in parasitism, then I can fail to know of such a tool used by a parasite in parasitism according to you. The point is that there is no point in me providing an example until it is relevant to something. From where I stand - it is irrelevant to what we are talking about. I have a marginal understanding how it may relate, but until I figure out more about this whole idea, as I was asking previously, because this if other people see "right" and "wrong" similarly to the way I see "right" and "wrong" then that will be measurable as being that, in that way, or it may not, and then I'll find out that it is not that way. won't do. Maybe I'm looking at things from too much of a teacher's perspective, but, oh, well, that's the human material you find yourself talking with.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 18th, 2013 12:00 pm |
|
13th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, Odd things are happening on this Forum with the name sunipod123 showing up on the TAB name on top of this page. There is a new user named sunipod123, and I can delete the user if odd things persist, or if the new user starts using the forum as a advertizing vehicle, but I wonder if you have seen the odd things (name sunipod123 showing up on the page window for topics that so far do not include any posts by sunipod123) and I wonder if you have any idea what is going on with the forum. You wrote: Huh. As if I was the one to put in 'terms are symbols' as an argument... Alright, redacted. I do not perceive a discussion as being an argument, since I perceive an argument as a method of aggressively or deceitfully "winning" said argument. I see a discussion as a voluntary and welcome competition of ideas, and a discussion can even occur between myself and my former or future self, as I write my viewpoints down, and then, in another time and place, I may have another viewpoint to compared with my former viewpoint. So your discussion, or argument as you say, that involves me isn't one involving me when an argument may (I said "if" in my earlier sentence concerning an argument over the meaning of symbols) become this aggressive, or deceptive, idea and then action, to "win" an argument. If you and I can communicate it will be a result of our finding symbols arranged in a way where we can both agree to the meaning of those symbols without one of us claiming the the symbols do not mean what the other one says they mean. I provided examples of what I mean with the road, the road sign, and the danger ahead. If you do not agree with the meaning of the words I use, where my words are not meant to be ambiguous, then I can try to use words that mean specific things, so as to remove enough ambiguity to reach the goal of offering an accurate perspective. If you were speeding down the road, and I had an opportunity to warn you about the impending doom that will happen down the road if you continue speeding down the road, then my intent is not to be ambiguous, my intent is to arrange the symbols in such a way as to be specific, precise, and effective at giving you warning concerning the viewpoint I currently have in view, which in this example is illustrating impending doom as someone speeds down a road, over a blind hill, and falls off a cliff where a bridge was and is no more. That is my way of illustrating my viewpoint offered to you on the present subject matter concerning the arrangements of symbols, and that is just a beginning, not an end, and I do not have any desire to win the argument, my goal is to know better, because knowing worse is unfordable. I think your viewpoints, so far expressed, contain many competitive ideas that are worth comparing to my own, as there is no way I can see for me to invent your viewpoints myself, not in a million years, to repeat an old ambiguous phrase. You specifically indicated deceit, threat and violence as 'tools'. Tools are things, not the person. And you seem to try and view 'tools' separately. Here is where I am still confused as to what I may "seem" to do and what I actually try to convey with symbols. A tool is separate from a person, and so I see that as being a fact, not me doing the connecting or disconnecting of the person from the tool. The tool is already separate from the person, so where do I fit into this power to connect them, or to disconnect them, seemingly, or actually? If the tool and the person were one and the same thing, why would there be any need for two words? Looking at your quote again, I am further confused, since one of your sentences is a statement of fact, which is stated as a statement of fact as if someone, somewhere, needs to know this statement of fact, as if someone somewhere does not know this statement of fact, so you are going to state this statement of fact, in such a way as to inform this person who may not know this statement of fact. Tools are things, not the person. I know that, so who does not know that, and if we both know that, then where is the disagreement, where is the person who does not know that, or the question that may work better is a question as to why you find the need to state that fact, since we both know that that is a fact. The next sentence appears to be contradictory to the previous sentence, furthering my effort to explain my confusion. Tools are things, not the person. And you seem to try and view 'tools' separately. I am working on the concept of motive, and the tools are clues that may help in this work of working on the concept of motive. I am also firmly planted in the perception of a very destructive lie, whereby the liar claims that things can be held responsible, and accountable, for the thoughts and actions of human beings, or inhuman beings. There is a phrase or two that illustrates the point. The gun did it. The government did it. Guns kill people. Governments are bad. I don't know if that helps in building a mutually agreeable viewpoint. Maybe I'm looking at things from too much of a teacher's perspective, but, oh, well, that's the human material you find yourself talking with. I may be able to offer an example of the competition I have in view concerning morality. If two people meet on that road where the road is a blind hill, and just after the blind hill there was a bridge, but the bridge has fallen, and now there is a certain fall to a certain death instead of a bridge, and these two people meet, and they work to communicate their competitive viewpoints on morality. In fact I can describe this situation with a video that was shown on "The News" here where I live. In this video a person films a car full of people driving off the edge of a cliff, and the news report reports that those people in the car died. This happened after a very serious Earthquake that occurred some years ago, centered somewhere near San Francisco, California. I saw that video of that event where the car drives by, and goes off the cliff, and my first thought was to wonder why that person doing the recording of the video was recording the video instead of stepping in the way of the car, warning the driver of the car, about the fact that the bridge was broken by the Earthquake, and driving fast on that road was not a good idea. So that can help set the stage on this concept of competitive viewpoints concerning morality. Person A wants to get rich filming a video that can be sold to people who want to get rich in the business of entertaining the masses of people who are bored and are at their televisions on a regular basis, looking for things to see that they want to see while they are on this schedule of looking at the television every day. Person B says, hold on there, those people will die if they are not warned, so seriously, Person A, isn't there some other way you may get rich? I don't know if that helps bridge the language gap.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 18th, 2013 12:47 pm |
|
14th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Odd things are happening on this Forum with the name sunipod123 showing up on the TAB name on top of this page. There is a new user named sunipod123, and I can delete the user if odd things persist, or if the new user starts using the forum as a advertizing vehicle, but I wonder if you have seen the odd things (name sunipod123 showing up on the page window for topics that so far do not include any posts by sunipod123) and I wonder if you have any idea what is going on with the forum. There was another user couple of weeks ago. He posted 2 advertisement topic. I deleted both a banned him. All of that should be in the forum logs if they do exist. If the tool and the person were one and the same thing, why would there be any need for two words? Assuming the usage is justified... The gun did it. The deceit/threats/violence did it. The disagreement lies in generalization. We talk about social parasitism in general. Not particular occasions or first layer of onion, right? Otherwise I totally see your point. I saw that video of that event where the car drives by, and goes off the cliff, and my first thought was to wonder why that person doing the recording of the video was recording the video instead of stepping in the way of the car Nice one. And relevant at that. I'll think of what can be said. I'll try to incorporate what I meant next time. For now - I'm boiling alive and can't think straight.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat May 18th, 2013 01:34 pm |
|
15th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, Thanks for helping defend the forum against attacks. The deceit/threats/violence did it. My thinking at this point is along the lines of a miscommunication concerning my motive in asking you to let me know which tools are used by parasites in parasitism, as far as you know. My motive for asking is not to blame the tool for the actions perpetrated by parasites in parasitism. My motive is to see if the same tools are being used by criminals perpetrating crimes. If I happen upon a metal stick poking out of the ground in a forest in New Jersey, to illustrate a point here, I may step on that metal stick poking out of the ground without any thoughts of danger. If, on the other hand, I were to find a metal stick poking out of the ground in Europe, on the Eastern or Western boarders of Germany, or in Cambodia, or in Vietnam, I may want to consider the reasons for metal sticks poking out of the ground in a forest in those places. If the metal stick poking out of the ground is a mine, and my testicles are separated from my body, along with a leg or two, because I stepped on the metal stick, then that is all my fault, as I am to blame, I am held responsible, and I am held accountable for stepping on the metal stick poking out of the ground in a Forest near Germany or Cambodia, etc. It is a lie to blame the mine for being a mine, if that is what you think I am doing, either using the lie myself, for some devious reason, or if you think I am a victim of the lie, believing it, then I can confirm to you that I do not desire to use the lie, and my testicles are not blown off by the lie, in this case, at this time. I have been wrong in the past, so it stands to reason that I will be wrong again in the future. I look for these mines, and I look for these lies, and I don't blame things for the actions of people. I don't even know if that is what you thought, when you wrote those words. These: The deceit/threats/violence did it. No, I don't think that is true, but to illustrate my point I can point out that a sign on a blind hill, where the person placing the sign desires the destruction of human beings is factual, but irrelevant to my decision to remove the sign, so as to avoid further destruction of human beings, focuses my attention on the sign, or the mine, and safe removal of the sign, or the mine, to me is a good idea. That was my point. Mines are placed in place, often, and they may be placed in place by good people, or criminals, or parasites, and effective warnings are tools too, compare to lies and mines. The effective warning, a tool, didn't do it. Who uses lies, threats, violence, and mines? Who uses effective warnings, and who uses tools that removes lies, threats, violence, and mines? My point may not be well communicated, again? The disagreement lies in generalization. We talk about social parasitism in general. Not particular occasions or first layer of onion, right? Otherwise I totally see your point. I don't even now know, if we share the meaning of the word disagreement, since I see no disagreement between a specific thing and a general thing, since one is one thing, and the other is another thing, so there can't be a disagreement between do things that can agree, since they are two things, not one thing. One thing is an agreement. Two things are two things. A disagreement is one thing. What is the disagreement? Example: Do you think that I blame things for the actions of people? If the answer is no, then there is no disagreement. What is the disagreement? Example: If you are speaking about something general, something concerning parasites in parasitism, then that is what you are doing. If I am speaking about specific things used by criminals when criminals commit crimes, then that is something else, and now there are two things identified as two things. 1. Your speaking about general things concerning parasites in parasitism. 2. Me speaking about specific tools used by criminals (mines, lies, etc.) in the willful destruction of innocent life. Those two things cannot agree, they are two things, and if there is an agreement found between those two things, then we can both see it at that time. Fill in the blank? 1. Your speaking about general things concerning parasites in parasitism. 2. Me speaking about specific tools used by criminals (mines, lies, etc.) in the willful destruction of innocent life. 3. Something found where 1 and 2 above agree, and that thing is_________ For now - I'm boiling alive and can't think straight. I was immediately impressed with the image of cannibalism. To serve Sergey: a book of recipes?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 19th, 2013 05:00 am |
|
16th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
I was immediately impressed with the image of cannibalism. Just add some potatoes and sauce and I'm ready to be served. That heat! 30 degrees Celsius indoors. FML! I'm about to disappear into the Goff's closet within the depths of the office. Bubbly interns with a lower case 't' for 'Tony'. Gaping goatse sucks me in. Bill Ropar, G Fraser and J Wilson are about to have a snack. Hard job in the rear awaits!
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 19th, 2013 10:17 am |
|
17th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Sergey, Has this forum been hacked by - sunipod123? Look here: From: sunipodsolar@gmail.com To: bear Subject: New Reply to Final Editing - sunipod123 Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 12:08:32 -0400 Compare that to this: From: josf.kelley@hotmail.com To: bear Subject: New Reply to Final Editing - Power Independence Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 05:56:44 -0400 I have had my e-mail address changed? bear has discovered these changes, and I don't yet know what to do about them, the first step I suppose is to delete sunipod123, and then see if my e-mail address returns to my e-mail address. I know that I can contact the UltraBB Forum Service and they can reload a previous back-up of this Forum, which I've done in the past, when I've been hacked in the past. What do you think?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 19th, 2013 10:50 am |
|
18th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
Well, as with any BB-code based forums, there are gaping holes when it comes to security. I changed obvious things back to what I think it was before and banned both newly appeared ads accounts. If those were bots - that should be enough. I can't imagine anyone bother enough to do more than just mess around here. And since this particular (UltraBB) doesn't support any manual adjustments (outside some purely cosmetic stuff) - there isn't much you can do to prevent this from happening again.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 19th, 2013 12:13 pm |
|
19th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Thanks, I've considered moving all my work here to a better place, but I have not stepped further in that direction than the idea of moving. If you can offer a suggested place to move toward, I can then move a step to that better place, such as asking how much the better place costs?
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun May 19th, 2013 12:49 pm |
|
20th Post |
|
Jee-Host[gm] Guest
|
I wouldn't know where to go in US net zone. However, you can simply back things up on your own hard drive with some regularity. If that is possible - then there is no much fear of losing anything I guess.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:32 am | |
| Power Independence > Book > Novel > Idea | Top |
