0
   

EXPRESSING LOVE TO CHILDREN

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Jul, 2008 09:22 pm
Setanta wrote:


Quote:
I have no reason to take a tediously long post

It was MORE tedious WRITING it,
but I thought I 'd do u the courtesy of answering your post.

Quote:

which just indicates more clearly that you don't understand the concepts
in operation here to be a compliment.

WERE thay ?



Quote:

I won't continue to point out to you that you don't get and why you don't
get it because it is all too apparent that you are only interested in argumentation.
I'll just put it as succinctly as possible, and have done with it.

OK



Quote:

Giving things to children does not constitute an expression of love.

Conceding that, for the sake of argument,
I still assert that the true indication of love
for any person is the endeavor to elevate the level of her or his JOY.
Anything less than that
is idle, futile and without effect or value.
If u dispute that,
then u are free to explain how.
I don 't think u can; or anyone else, either.





Quote:

Giving things to someone for such an arbitrary reason as that one alleges
that someone to be "the prettiest" is a bad idea with children because it
will give them unreal expectations of life and society.

I already explained that this statement
was confined to waitresses in restaurants.
Perhaps I shoud have added that the waitresses were adults.
I did not say that to any child.




Quote:

Giving children candy or money (which will more than likely be spent on
candy or other forms of refined sugar) feeds a drug habit and leaves
the parents to deal with the consequences. I consider your claim that this
is an expression of love for children to be about as far from reality as it is
possible to get without actually having a morbid pathological problem.
I don 't accept the philosophy
that no one shud ever give anything to a kid
because of what he might choose to eat.
When I was a kid I ate whatever I pleased.
(Now u can say that 's how I got so twisted as to love freedom.)




Quote:

The word "thay" does not exist in English,
so using such a dull-witted substitute does not
create confusion about the meaning of a word.

It is created by use.
That is how Shakespeare did it, e.g.
He was known for neology.
We are all free to do it.



Quote:

But to apply your standard to other such words,
how would you propose that someone distinguish between pray and prey,
if it were not immediately apparent from context?

Agreed.

I 'd leave that alone
until experts choose how to resolve it.
I have no wish to be the final judge of how
English shoud be spelled.
I just wish to join the worthy effort to tear down
so much of the old paradime as is unworthy of preservation,
as a dentist scrapes away and removes tooth decay, not the whole tooth.




Quote:

Your idiosyncratic spellings generally suffer from a lack of consistently coherent application.

Guilty as charged.




Quote:


As for preening your ego with the belief that i am jealous of you in anything, don't kid yourself.

I think I hit a nerve.


Quote:

I happen to have scored sufficiently well on the Stanford-Binet "IQ" test to qualify for Mensa--but i'm not a joiner. The only time i joined anything was when i joined the army, and although i don't regret the experience, i would not have done so knowing what i now know. I am unimpressed by the concept of "IQ" testing as a measure of intelligence. Alfred Binet himself cautioned people not take his test as a literal measure of intelligence--and it had been designed to find those with learning disabilities quickly without the use of individual interview and case studies. Binet never intended it to be a serious measure of intelligence, and he personally believed that intelligence could not be determined by testing. More than anything else, it tested enculturation, and the extent to which a student had imbibed the scholastic culture to which they had been committed.

For me to be jealous of you, i would have to envy something about you. Make no mistake: there is nothing about you that i admire, and nothing about you which i would wish to emulate.

It has been a good social club
for the last 30 years.
Good place to find chicks.
There is a minimal intelligence level for me to be able to relate to a chick.
If she can t reason, then I have a problem.

As I once thought (in the privacy of my own mind)
of a nice looking, slender redhead who made overtures,
her shallowness woud be like leading a cow around on a rope.
A lot of guys WANT that.
Its not her MIND that thay care about; but that 's not me.





David
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 09:22 am
Quote:
There is also something else:
upon the basis of reports from people who have returned from death,
I accept the concept that at the end of incarnate life, during a life review experience,
one experiences the emotions that one has inflicted upon others;
i.e., in that sense, what goes around comes around.
'

Is this about karma?

Uh.....

You're doing it wrong.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 10:39 am
boomerang wrote:
Quote:
There is also something else:
upon the basis of reports from people who have returned from death,
I accept the concept that at the end of incarnate life, during a life review experience,
one experiences the emotions that one has inflicted upon others;
i.e., in that sense, what goes around comes around.
'

Is this about karma?

Uh.....

You're doing it wrong.

How ?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 11:10 am
Chopping up my post to answer it piece meal is a dishonest way to reply. I did not take it as a complement that you wrote a tediously long post which simply indicated more clearly that you don't understand the concepts in operation. There is little use in continuing to point out to you that acquiring material objects provides only a transitory "joy" to a child, and does not constitute an expression of love, and does not benefit children in the same way that a genuine expression of love will do. People who don't particularly like a child will still give them a gift on occasions when it is socially deemed appropriate--so merely giving a gift will not necessarily be an expression of love. Conversely, people who genuinely do love children might give them gifts, such as savings bonds to help pay for their education in the future, or clothing which they will immediately need, which will not give the child a sense of joy--and yet those will be genuine demonstrations of love. Your thesis is unfounded and unproven.

It matters little if it is a child or an adult to whom you "award" your prize based on a superficiality. It is still superficial, and encourages a reliance upon a fleeting circumstance which is not the product of any useful skill which the individual has acquired or can develop. It is still true that this is a slap in the face of anyone (such as an equally skilled or even more skillful waitress) who doesn't happen to meet you idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition of "pretty."

That's two counts against the likelihood of you ever acquiring wisdom, given that you demonstrate so little understanding of love and its expression, and that you persist in priding yourself on an over-valuation of superficiality.

The point about candy or money to children is that a efined sugar product (candy) is a drug of choice for children, and the consequences of which are grief for the child and others who have to deal with the child, including the child's parents--while you go smugly on your way congratulating yourself on your altruism. You really don't get this point, and this:

Quote:
Now u [sic] can say that 's how I got so twisted as to love freedom.


. . . is evidence of how out of touch you are with reality. There is a valid distinction to be made between freedom and license, and whether or not that is true, the fact that someone disagrees with you has no relevance to a notion of freedom. That someone considers you clueless about children and love doesn't mean that that someone "hates freedom," a constant sing-song chant of deluded rightwingnuts whenever anyone disagrees with them for any reason. It also makes me suspect once again that you may be lying when you say you are a member of Mensa--that sort of non-reasoning response shows no intelligence.

You say you think you hit a nerve, but that is just one more instance of you preening your ego. All in all, i don't know why you bother to post anything here, given that you obviously don't accept (and probably often don't understand) the criticisms others make of what you write. It appears that your only object is to inform us all of the excellence of your understanding (as you delude yourself that the case is).
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 11:13 am
Dave, I know I'm wasting breath, but...

The best way to love a child is to listen with your heart to how they think and feel, and to encourage their spirit and dreams.

Cash is not part of the essential equation.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 11:59 am
Rockhead wrote:
Dave, I know I'm wasting breath, but...

The best way to love a child is to listen with your heart
to how they think and feel, and to encourage their spirit and dreams.

Cash is not part of the essential equation.

Well, RH, I believe that your advice is most insightful and deft.
I have endeavored, successfully, to do that in the past.

However, my observations of human nature,
applicable to humans of all ages, is that adding free money
to your recommended procedure results in greater happiness
than does the withholding thereof.

If U have counter-evidence,
I hope that u will share it with us.


David
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 12:20 pm
Dave, I don't have time to get in a long discussion, so this may sound a little harsh...

It comes down to effort.

The arbitrary distribution of assets without the necessary effort involved to determine maximum positive effect, is not terribly effective, whether as a Government philosophy, or a philanthropist's...

I see your strategy as the lazy man's way of making himself feel better about the inequity of life.

RH
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 12:21 pm
Quote:
adding free money
to your recommended procedure results in greater happiness
than does the withholding thereof.



Muffled sound of wingbeats as Rockheads items fly quickly over Daves head.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 02:08 pm
Setanta wrote:

Quote:
Chopping up my post to answer it piece meal is a dishonest way to reply.

When I so respond to any citizen of any of the fora upon which I post,
it is an effort to be meticulous and to be thorough as to everything
in that post which I deem to merit a response.



Quote:

I did not take it as a complement that you wrote a tediously long post
which simply indicated more clearly that you don't understand the concepts in operation.

To the extent that I deem a post to be of little value,
unworthy of response,
I ignore it; vice-versa.


Quote:

There is little use in continuing to point out to you
that acquiring material objects provides only a transitory "joy" to a child,

My personal experience of childhood
included long periods of boredom
which were relieved by activities that involved spending cash.
Transitory joy is better than the boredom of no joy.
U appear to reject that notion.
Your posts evince a belief that NO joy at all is preferable to transitory joy.
That seems very STRANGE to me.
By that reasoning, everyone who presents
(did u see how I avoided use of the word "begifts" in deference to your taste ?)
someone with a gift at Christmas time or for a birthday, is in error.
He shoud arrive empty-handed for the birthday celebration.
I don 't believe that is a good idea.

When u deprecate the creation of transitory joy, however fleeting,
u put me in mind of someone deploring the celebration of the 4th of July
with fireworks,
on the ground that thay do not remain illuminated.

When a man awakes to behold the intense beauty of a new snowfall
shoud he be mindful to abruptly turn away, avert his eyes,
refusing to contemplate it because it is destined to melt, in time ?
Shoud a man refuse to eat hedonicly savory food
because in a few moments, its flavor will pass from his mouth ?
I don 't think so.

I stand for the proposition that the creation of hedonic thrills
is GOOD
, and if thay be transitory,
let us make the most of it.

Gather those rosebuds.



Quote:

and does not constitute an expression of love, and does not benefit children
in the same way that a genuine expression of love will do.

Your posts and those of others have caused me to regret the use
of the word "love" in my chosen title; I wish I had used the frase
" creation of joy " instead.

I 'd give my donee-beneficiary enduring and permanent joy
if I were able to do so. I lack that ability.
I HAVE the observed ability to evoke joy (however brief) at the point
in time of his or her acquisition of the cash and again when he or she
spends the cash upon an object of desire.
After people whose judgment I respected in Mensa essentially agreed
with the position that u have expressed herein, I put it to a vote of
some of my donee-beneficiaries at the time. (Altho I have had no contact
with most of my donee-beneficiaries, this is not true of ALL of them.)
The vote was unanimous: thay wanted me to continue
giving away free money. Over the last 20 years, I have had several women
tell me individually, and joyfully, that their young children throw things
up in the air and shout "free money !"; if I chance to SILENTLY
throw out the cash in the grass,
I have kids shout at me: " SAY THE WORDS ! "




Quote:

People who don't particularly like a child will still give them a gift on
occasions when it is socially deemed appropriate--so merely giving a gift
will not necessarily be an expression of love.

I recognize the merit of your logic on this point.
However, if it was a GOOD gift (something the donee wanted, or enuf cash)
then he or she 'd experience JOY regardless of the donor 's emotions.




Quote:

Conversely, people who genuinely do love children might give them gifts,
such as savings bonds to help pay for their education in the future,
or clothing which they will immediately need,
which will not give the child a sense of joy--

True: hence, I do not present such gifts.
I have chosen to promote instant gratification
(tho transitory, as u have repeatedly pointed out).


Quote:

and yet those will be genuine demonstrations of love.
Your thesis is unfounded and unproven.

U may be correct as to love,
but not as to joy (however brief).



Quote:

It matters little if it is a child or an adult to whom you "award" your prize

Juvenile donees are more cost-effective on a per dollar basis,
in that because their cash flows are smaller,
there is a more intense hedonic thrill.
For instance, in the early 1990s, after a woman told me that her oldest son
had his birthday (he became 13), I sought him out and gave him
a $10 bill and a $20 bill that I had immediately at hand.
A few weeks thereafter, in conversation he said:
" U know, David, when u put that money in my hand,
that was the most money that I ever held in my LIFE."
I was a little surprized.
His father told me that he was an $8 an hour delivery man.
Altho he was a very, very money conscious person,
I do not believe that if I had given him the same amount of cash,
I 'd have generated the same amount of joy (however transitory)
because the father was accustomed to handling cash.






Quote:

based on a superficiality.

I take it that u are referring to personal beauty, right ?




Quote:

It is still superficial, and encourages a reliance upon a fleeting circumstance
which is not the product of any useful skill which the individual
has acquired or can develop.

This is accurate.
The awarded prize was SOMETHING FOR NOTHING
except for radiating beauty out into the world.






Quote:

It is still true that this is a slap in the face of anyone (such as an equally
skilled or even more skillful waitress) who doesn't happen to meet you
idiosyncratic and arbitrary definition of "pretty."

In the service of DIPLOMACY,
I did not award the prize with another waitress standing next to her.
I have no wish gratuitously to hurt someone 's feelings.





Quote:

That's two counts

Who was it who condemned my grammar ?




Quote:

against the likelihood of you ever acquiring wisdom,
given that you demonstrate so little understanding of love and its expression,

What is YOUR understanding of love ?
According to Setanta: what is love ?




Quote:
and that you persist in priding yourself on an over-valuation
of superficiality.

It is not a matter of pride.
I am not a collectivist, who advocates SHARING.
I have always supported selfishness and greed
(altho not entirely as much as I used to before I began giving away free cash).






Quote:

The point about candy or money to children
is that a efined sugar product (candy) is a drug of choice for children,

I surmise that u deem this to be a poison.
We do not share this point of vu.
I have enjoyed good quality candy during and since my childhood,
with no sign of abatement.





Quote:

and the consequences of which are grief for the child

Truely and sincerely: that has never happened in my experience,
as to any child,
nor has it ever been alleged to have happened.





Quote:

and others who have to deal with the child,
including the child's parents--

I have discovered (rather unexpectedly)
that the fastest way to become friends with a parent
is to give cash to his or her child; thay LOVE IT !!!
I have never actually been grabbed, hugged and kissed by a parent,
but almost. Thay invite me to dinner,
to all kinds of occasions, graduations, have their children call me
and write to me at home. Its INSTANT FRIENDSHIP; tho sometimes it
begins with thoughts of pecuniary exploitation, in time, it does not remain so
and evolves into genuine friendship.





Quote:

while you go smugly on your way congratulating yourself on your altruism.

O, my goodness !
U insulted me !
I 'm glad that Ayn Rand is not around to read your accusation against me.
I hope Branden does not find out !

As for my being SMUG:
OK: U got me.
Forget Miranda; I confess !







Quote:
You really don't get this point, and this:

Quote:
Now u [sic] can say that 's how I got so twisted as to love freedom.


. . . is evidence of how out of touch you are with reality.

I was being defensive, Mr. Setanta,
anticipating your verbal attack.




Quote:

There is a valid distinction to be made between freedom and license,
and whether or not that is true, the fact that someone disagrees with you
has no relevance to a notion of freedom. That someone considers you
clueless about children and love doesn't mean that that someone "hates
freedom," a constant sing-song chant of deluded rightwingnuts whenever
anyone disagrees with them for any reason. It also makes me suspect
once again that you may be lying when you say you are a member
of Mensa--that sort of non-reasoning response shows no intelligence.

My enjoyment of my social club will remain unaffected
by your suspicions.





Quote:

You say you think you hit a nerve, but that is just one more instance
of you preening your ego. All in all, i don't know why you bother to post
anything here, given that you obviously don't accept (and probably often
don't understand) the criticisms others make of what you write. It
appears that your only object is to inform us all of the excellence of your
understanding (as you delude yourself that the case is).

I endeavor to propagate my point of vu on multiple fora.




David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jul, 2008 04:41 pm
You pick out what you want to respond to, and don't respond to the totality of the thought. Giving a child candy is not simply a transitory joy, it is followed by the negative effects of the drug experience. While the sugar is still coursing through their veins, children behave in a manic way, and this is usually a problem for the parents. Those parents who don't care have simply dumped the problem on the other children and adults around them, or, if left alone, simply store up mental (and possibly physical) trauma for the child's future. This is why when responsible parents allow their child to have small amounts of refined sugar, they only do so after the child has eaten a healthy meal, and in supervised circumstances.

Quite apart from that, the consumption of refined sugar products by a child in a context in which they haven't just eaten a healthy meal puts them on a metabolic high which is followed by a metabolic crash, and by depression and often by episodes of petulance and weeping. This is something which i have pointed out before, although in less detail, but you continue to ignore that giving children refined sugar products (candy) randomly and without regard to context is an act of facilitating a form of drug abuse for the child. Meanwhile, you go on your merry way, congratulating yourself on the excellence of your behavior.

But you focus on the issue of transitory joy, and attempt to suggest that i prefer the notion of no joy to transitory joy. A child who is given gifts by those whom they know, and whom they love, and who love them, is afforded a more than transitory joy. A child who would be given candy or money by a stranger has no continuing benefits of what you idiotically refer to as an expression of love.

So all of your bullshit about someone arriving at a birthday celebration empty-handed is a strawman--i suggested nothing of the kind. In fact, this statement:

Quote:
Your posts evince a belief that NO joy at all is preferable to transitory joy.


. . . is bullshit, and the biggest strawman, nothing i said remotely resembles that line of crap. Once again, it is obvious that you really know nothing of the lives of children, and especially in the context of the task which parents have in raising them and giving them a good home.

Frankly, i believe that you are lying with your little bullshit story about "donee-beneficiaries." I have noticed a tendency when you are losing ground in a discussion for you to bring up some anecdotal evidence from your life's experience, and i have long been convinced that you make it up because you really have no other argument.

In short, whenever you do this, i believe you are lying.

I am not surprised that you inflict yourself on the members of more than one forum. That is not evidence of the any value in what you post. I see little utility in continuing to facilitate your rant--it is certainly not a conversation. Basically, you mind me of the member Coberst, who spreads his rants all over the internet. Anyone stumbling into one of your threads is invited to agree with you or be damned. You have a saving grace that Coberst does not possess, though. He quickly becomes anxious and angry, and can't sustain an exchange of views. You seem able to do it endlessly, although, of course, you never intend to change your point of view, or to admit that it may be flawed, any more than is the case with Coberst.

Have fun in your fantasy world, Bubba.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 06:07 pm
Rockhead wrote:


Quote:
Dave, I don't have time to get in a long discussion, so
this may sound a little harsh...

I don 't deem it HARSH, Rocky,
but I believe that u have inaccurately misunderstood my filosofy.
In effect, your post has me carrying someone else 's flag.




Quote:
It comes down to effort.

The arbitrary distribution of assets
without the necessary effort involved
to determine maximum positive effect,
is not terribly effective, whether as a Government philosophy, or a philanthropist's...

I have unlimited freedom to begift whomever I wish,
subject to the rejection thereof
(which HAS happened around 2% or 3% of the time).

I have no duty to ascertain
the "maximum positive effect"; I usually take a lazy approach to it,
like throwing Ziplock Freezer Bags with cash in them from a little train
(on wheels) at the Bronx Zoo, to on-lookers at the side, who enjoy my favor.
I did that from a taxi, in 1984, on a trip to India, with my dry cleaner.
The cab driver objected that HE had to work for HIS rupees.
As a child, with time on my hands,
sometimes I threw stones into a body of water, just to see the splashes.
U can do that with people 's minds, just for fun.


Like the fictional John Beresford Tipton,
I have unlimited freedom in selecting my donee-beneficiaries
and likewise, I am unlimited in my freedom to decide how much time or effort to apply.
There have been times when I 've applied a little bit more time n effort,
e.g., when I sent the 8 year-old-son of a girlfriend in the 1980s
a letter postmarked from a distant State while I was travelling,
addressed to him and saying:
" Mr. Richardwhateverthehell
address, NY

Dear Sir:

1. It is the purpose of this writing to inform you
that you won second prize in the contest.

2. Here 's the money.

3. Better luck next time.


..........................................................The Contest Committee"

enclosing a $100.oo bill.

I thought he might have fun
telling his friends in school about it.

It was never attributed to me.



Quote:

I see your strategy as the lazy man's way
of making himself feel better about the inequity of life.

RH

I have a chronic lazy ness, tempered only by excesses of lethargy.
(I have never put that on a job resume.)

However,
thoughts about "the inequity of life" are more likely to be heard from
a collectivist, a socialist,
whereas I have been an INDIVIDUALIST since before Barry Goldwater.
To ME, "the inequity of life" comes from collectivist minded bad guys
ripping off the freedom of the individual.
I have NEVER BEEN an egalitarian; I am certain that not even
identical twins are equal to one another.

As the captain of my own ship,
in my mind, I follow the stars of happiness, freedom, guns and gold,
not collectivism, nor hallucinated equality.

I apply the lazy man 's way
of creating brief hedonic thrills (like Roman Candles going up on the 4th of July)
for those whom I chance to benefit.

I remember someone named Percy
in the NY Daily News years ago,
who gave away money to the poor,
who wrote to him; he got a lot of nasty mail, too.
Poverty has not been an element in deciding my donations.
I remember angry complaints when I went to India:
" It is the rich giving to the rich."




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2008 11:08 pm
Setanta wrote:

Quote:
You pick out what you want to respond to,

This is true.
Call me eclectic.



Quote:
and don't respond to the totality of the thought.

U have the freedom
to point out anything u wish,
to request a reply.



Quote:

Giving a child candy is not simply a transitory joy,
it is followed by the negative effects of the drug experience.

Judging by my own juvenile experience in the ingestion thereof,
and by observation of other children having done so,
I am not moven to agree with u.

Perhaps u believe
that Lt. Halvorsen rendered a disservice
to the citizens of Berlin in his Candy Boming.
From what I have read of it, he was beloved for it.
Personally, I have never given away candy, so far as I remember.
If children (or anyone) wish to purchase it with cash that I 've given them,
that is their business, and I will respect their autonomous privacy.
During the last 20 years: I have never had any complaints.

From your posts, I surmise that u have observed frenzied people
whose disorder u attribute to ingestion of sugar.



Quote:

While the sugar is still coursing through their veins, children behave in
a manic way,
[ ?? ] and this is usually ?? a problem for the parents.

This assertion is inconsistent with my observations
during numerous years n decades (tho I have not been on the lookout for it).



Quote:

Those parents who don't care have simply dumped the problem on the
other children and adults around them, or, if left alone, simply store up
mental (and possibly physical) trauma for the child's future.

From the age of 8 on up,
I ate whatever amount of candy I wanted,
being alone most of the day, and attending to my own needs,
but I was never accused by anyone of acting as u describe.
Admittedly, I was not a glutton for candy; not a great deal of interest in it, really.
I never saw other kids act as u describe.

Presumably, u have seen that.




Quote:

This is why when responsible parents allow their child to have small amounts
of refined sugar, they only do so after the child has eaten a healthy meal, and in supervised circumstances.

As I remember, not only I but my friends at the time
had cash enuf to buy Milkyway bars or Snickers whenever thay wanted to.
We did occasionally; no big deal; no consequences; no one lost his mind
nor ran amuck (which was a good thing, since most of them were well armed).





Quote:

Quite apart from that, the consumption of refined sugar products
by a child in a context in which they haven't just eaten a healthy meal
puts them on a metabolic high which is followed by a metabolic crash,

Not such that we ever noticed.
This never became a subject of discussion for any of us
during my childhood.





Quote:

and by depression and often by episodes of petulance and weeping.

I don 't remember that any of the kids whom I knew
during my childhood ever wept unless thay were injured.
The reason that I refer to the observations of my own childhood
is that since then, for the most part,
I have not had children under my observation.




Quote:

This is something which i have pointed out before, although in less detail,
but you continue to ignore that giving children refined sugar products
(candy) randomly and without regard to context is an act of facilitating
a form of drug abuse for the child.

I have never given children sugar nor candy,
so far as I can remember; on those occasions when I have been
called upon to babysit them, I have simply paid for
whatever thay have chosen to order from a menu in a restaurant.
There were never any problems; no complaints.

In my opinion ( presumably NOT in yours ?? )
Lt. Halvorsen 's candy boming was a very good and commendable thing.

Your descriptions are inconsistent with my observations of reality.
I will allow for the possibility
of endocrinological differences in the people whom we each have seen.



Quote:
Meanwhile, you go on your merry way, congratulating yourself
on the excellence of your behavior.

Not exactly:
more precisely, it is a way of having fun
for me and for my donee (if the gift is successful).
It is fun for me
to create fun for me and for the objects of my good will.



Quote:
But you focus on the issue of transitory joy,

Yes;
Like pyrotechnics going up on the nite of the 4th of July,
that burst into beauty for a moment, before fading
and before another round is sent up to continue the display.

The momentary splendor of colored illumination
is better than continual silent darkness.
( hint, hint )




Quote:

and attempt to suggest that i prefer the notion of no joy to transitory joy.

Your posts appeared to imply that;
u r free to confirm or deny it.





Quote:
A child who is given gifts by those whom they know, and whom they love,
and who love them, is afforded a more than transitory joy. A child who
would be given candy or money by a stranger has no continuing benefits
of what you idiotically refer to as an expression of love.

Perhaps I shoud have referred to the creation of joy
in my choice for a name for this thread, instead of expression of love.

If I read your meaning correctly,
in essence,
u allege that when I scattered $10 Gold Pieces in front of children
these gifts were of inferior value and effected LESS joy
than if their parents gave them a box of Crackjax.

I 'm not so sure of that.

Quote:

So all of your bullshit about someone arriving at a birthday celebration empty-handed is a strawman--i suggested nothing of the kind. In fact, this statement:

Quote:
Your posts evince a belief that NO joy at all is preferable to transitory joy.


. . . is bullshit, and the biggest strawman, nothing i said remotely resembles that line of crap.

It speaks well for the quality of your ability to reason
that u have now denied it.





Quote:

Once again, it is obvious that you really know nothing of the lives of children,

I never represented myself to be an expert
on the psychology of people of ANY age,
but I DO have an ability to REMEMBER my observations
from my own childhood of my experience
and of the experiences of my contemporaries.

When I hear those who purport to be experts assert
a state of affairs that is strikingly inconsitent
with my own observations,
I may well speak out and challenge it.






Quote:
and especially in the context of the task which parents have in raising them and giving them a good home.

Frankly, i believe that you are lying with your little bullshit story about "donee-beneficiaries." I have noticed a tendency when you are losing ground in a discussion for you to bring up some anecdotal evidence from your life's experience, and i have long been convinced that you make it up because you really have no other argument.

In short, whenever you do this, i believe you are lying.
I am not surprised that you inflict yourself on the members of more than one forum. That is not evidence of the any value in what you post. I see little utility in continuing to facilitate your rant--it is certainly not a conversation.

Yeah ?
Well, I believe that u r lying
when u allege that u believe that I am lying.
How 's that ?






Quote:

Basically, you mind me of the member Coberst, who spreads his rants all
over the internet. Anyone stumbling into one of your threads is invited to
agree with you or be damned. You have a saving grace that Coberst
does not possess, though. He quickly becomes anxious and angry,
and can't sustain an exchange of views.

I don 't recognize the name;
I cannot comment, for absence of information.




Quote:

You seem able to do it endlessly, although, of course, you never intend to
change your point of view,

As I sit here,
I cannot tell u that: " I intend to CHANGE MY POINT OF VU, MR. SETANTA. I will do so in 5 days
and then I will change it to something else 7 weeks thereafter."
I have not formulated such an INTENTION,
however, I keep an open mind
to consider either new evidence
or any challenge to how I have organized my system of beliefs
inasmuch as I have no wish to harbor beliefs that r inconsistent
with reality, nor with competent logic.




Quote:

or to admit that it may be flawed,

That depends upon how convincing any challenge is.




Quote:

any more than is the case with Coberst.

Have fun in your fantasy world, Bubba [??] .

Have a nice weekend.




David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 06:10:52