1
   

contributors to humankind or human unkind?

 
 
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 02:43 pm
I'm new to this debate forum, or any debate forum considering that the last one I actively participated in was when the original MSN came out with Windows 95. I'm not too sure of the age groups here or the seriousness of the debates, but I have a serious issue that is tearing away at me to get out and be discussed to the point that I couldn't put these thoughts to sleep. This is a very complicated, multifaceted issue that may take a bit of reading to understand the full perspective I have, so please don't jump to conclusions. Basically, this issue has to do with societal doom and misery (caused by selfishness leaving us all lonely and bitter), along with social propaganda and pressure groups, or what I'd rather call "unsettled social groups" for a very good reason.

There is an extremely high occurrence of at least one television per household in the country I live in, and also in any "developed" country. This makes it a useful tool at spreading everything from truths to lies.

I once read that children, up until the age of about four, are unable to differentiate between reality and the content on a television screen. The brain at such an early age has no reason to know that these images it's seeing aren't actually happening. If those children are never taught that the on-screen content is not actually reality, how will these children ever learn to be anything other than what they've always seen? Ex: Social pressure groups portray white men as dumb and preoccupied with sex. This causes youngsters to grow up believing this is the reality and this is how they are by nature because they simply know of no other way to be. I view this method used by the unsettled social groups as very malicious, devious, and worst of all, selfish. (Not even bothering to mention corporate America making us believe we have to have something or we will remain unhappy without it, further adding to the misery of the masses and the rich peoples pocketbooks.) And so it goes, they grow up and continue watching these television shows with displays of a warped reality that are nicely packaged to keep them entertained or passive when they should be outraged and active. The really bad part of it all is that they don't know they are watching a warped view of reality because it's what they grew up with. How do you tell someone 2+2 is not 4 when they grew up being taught to believe it was?

In "Turned-on Toddlers," Werner Halpern writes about the over-stimulation that TV presents, possibly being the root cause of ADD and ADHD. In "TV-land", we miss out on all the more uninteresting, hum-drum (or boring as so many children call it) activities in life, such as sitting still and reflecting on life or walking from one location to another. TV presents us with ever-moving activity that seems interesting, and from this, a child learns that this is reality and always must have something to do so as to not be "bored" when in fact this is not true. I digress off topic a bit, but this is another example of how TV shapes the minds of our children and warps their view of reality. Statistics have also proven that heavy viewers of TV do more poorly in school and/or in social situations.

So why do I prefer to call these pressure groups "unsettled social groups"? Well, it is widely understood that fear or misery is the fire that drives so many people's efforts in a society. Hitler, if you want a prominent name for an example of fear. Or (insert corporate giant identity here) preys on the misery of the masses, making people believe they want (or even worse, making a product a necessity to someone's life) something to make their life complete. Misery can be traced back to an unsatisfied want or desire. In order to serve the self-concerned plight of any particular self-centered person or group, a longing or want for something more must be created. Once the seed is planted, the organism breeding on misery or fear will almost certainly grow, as there are plenty of methods to deliver the seed to the masses via today's technology (TV for one). In relation to pressure groups, a seed was once planted to make people believe their lives were unfulfilled, unlived, or unhappy (when in truth the color or complete warping of reality we choose to display is what breeds the beginnings of the unhappiness or emptiness). I'd now like to enter into a scenario…

Farm life in the old Mississippi delta…the patriarch of the farm starts his day at the crack of dawn and goes through his listing of priorities and tasks. About this time, the supporting matriarch also goes through her list of priorities and begins collecting the milk and eggs to feed her family. The girls are being taught to follow in her footsteps while the boys are out helping to get various other supporting roles complete, following along in the father's footsteps. For the most part, these tasks are not done for selfish reasons, as the husband and wife married through a selfless form of love, and the children do it because they are told and will one day better understand life and then will need no one to tell them. They enjoy life to its fullest despite the demands placed on them, for what is a life without reason or someone other than yourself to care about?

…and I actually know of a true story of a poor Mississippi farm woman who would wake her house to sounds of a beautiful piano tune before she proceeded to make a total of somewhere between 80 and 100 biscuits every day. Not to mention the smile on her face and in her soul, or in the souls of all her family or the people she touched. But today's society teaches the masses to be self-centered, give no one the time of day, and consider the motives of only the self and no one else. This will lead someone down a long, lonely path in life where they never know another soul because they only care about themselves. When they reflect back at the end of their life, the only thing behind them is destruction of any relationship they ever had (such is the sad position my own mother had put herself in). This lonely, self-concerned state of being is why I call pressure groups unsettled, meaning they have been made to be unhappy with their lives as if they should have something they don't. What's even worse is that these people have been taught since birth that this is the way they should be and that their misery is to be blamed on someone else. These groups are pressure groups, in that they pressure the mass media to display warped realities to serve their own plights, they pressure governments to bend to their will, or they pressure schools to teach our children with a perspective that will only aid in the deliverance of their misery or unsettled state to others who may have had the potential to be truly happy and selfless otherwise. To say they are repressed when they pressure so many aspects of society to bend to their will, and succeed in doing so, makes me believe they are not at all repressed, but liberated to the point of repressing other people's lives.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,095 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 03:08 pm
Kat

Sum it up. In a paragraph or less.

Almost everyone here is serious.
0 Replies
 
katuu-k2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 04:18 pm
is it just that most people only care when it can be read through quickly, else i'll get no discussion? i can understand that, i'm just new and a bit unfamiliar with protocols, i guess. the last paragraph says most of it...but the entire post says even more. to sum up more than that, even...here's part of that last paragraph.

This lonely, self-concerned state of being is why I call pressure groups unsettled, meaning they have been made to be unhappy with their lives as if they should have something they don't. What's even worse is that these people have been taught since birth that this is the way they should be and that their misery is to be blamed on someone else. These groups are pressure groups, in that they pressure the mass media to display warped realities to serve their own plights, they pressure governments to bend to their will, or they pressure schools to teach our children with a perspective that will only aid in the deliverance of their misery or unsettled state to others who may have had the potential to be truly happy and selfless otherwise. To say they are repressed when they pressure so many aspects of society to bend to their will, and succeed in doing so, makes me believe they are not at all repressed, but liberated to the point of repressing other people's lives.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 06:19 pm
well , for one, your understanding of Mississippi farm life needs some brush up. the disease pellegra was a major cause of infant and child mortalityin the Delta , mostly because the diet did consist of biscuits and coffee .
I guess Im the dim bulb here, I have no idea of your thesis here. When I seem to catch on, you shift directions. Can we take this apart for us slow witted ones/
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 06:20 pm
Well, I guess I could always just drop out of school and sell my computer, and stop eating out, and get rid of all my music and books, since my aquisition of all these things is only a product of culture. But you know what? I don't want to. I'm not brainwashed, I genuinely like this stuff. If you don't, you can go live in a cardboard box if you want. But I don't. I'm not unhappy because I don't own a car, or a milion dollars, or even a decent Windows OS - I'm happy because by telling me to buy things, to go to school, etc, I was introduced to things that I love.
0 Replies
 
katuu-k2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Oct, 2003 10:43 pm
farmerman says...
well , for one, your understanding of Mississippi farm life needs some brush up. the disease pellegra was a major cause of infant and child mortalityin the Delta , mostly because the diet did consist of biscuits and coffee .
...
I don't see how this disease that killed people would have anything to do with why I'd need to brush up on farm life?? In truth, I've never heard of pellagra and I was born and raised in the delta…I suppose healthcare has improved. I'm fairly familiar with farm life, though. Did something I say about farm life strike you as wrong?
…

rufio says he's introduced to things he loves and thinks my point is that we shouldn't have things?...or do I misunderstand?
…
Why do you believe I think we shouldn't have things? I suppose the point of my post was misunderstood, and this is most likely my fault. The point is that by making us want for something we don't have, we become unhappy, which is how corporate giants increase pocket books. And I only stated that to relate to show how fear and misery are tools for driving people's efforts in ways that benefit a self-concerned entity, such as a pressure group(although these tools are also found in use by corporate entities, parents, even some forms of teaching about Christianity). Do you disagree? And I think you should be able to be happy because you choose to be, not by having material possessions you "love".
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 01:58 am
People lived in fear and misery long before mass media and evil corporations.

TV is a good tool if used judiciously. Yes, parents need to monitor their kids' viewing habits, but I don't think you give kids enough credit for being able to tell fiction from reality. Mine turned out just fine (both are in college now), not lonely or bitter about anything.
0 Replies
 
katuu-k2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 07:35 am
Terry said...
People lived in fear and misery long before mass media and evil corporations.
...
Ok, but how about the discontent caused by pressure groups that are spreading lies and complete warped views of reality? Is this acceptable? What actually sparked this is a viewing of a film by a person I know who tends to get wrapped up in these films. This person's reaction is to get very enthusiastic about the pressure groups messages and has no understanding throughout the movie that it isn't a view of reality as it actually is. For example, in most movies being produced today (not all but most), we tend to see racial or feminist stories of struggle, somewhere mixed in is the gay guy that's beat up by the close-minded, straight white guy, and usually a police officer that is cast according to the situation. And please keep in mind that as unimportant as a role may seem, there is a reason behind every word and every role in a movie. If the phrase a person in a movie is saying were truly unimportant or the cast member were not significant, the scene would've never been filmed for the sake of budget. An example of the cop situation is that if a black guy is being wrongly accused, it is by a white man. If a white man is the bad guy, the cop is often either black, female, or there is a pairing of both (usually the female is blond if paired with a black man). In other cases, the female cop is very overbearing and exhibiting of masculine qualities while her white male sidekick is slow and preoccupied with sex. (Note here, I recently was witness to a movie character getting called a misogynist simply because he exhibited this overbearing, masculine quality; when I tried to explain what misogyny actually is, I was told that the textbook definition was wrong for the view that seems programmed into so many minds by the media). In these movies, there is usually a running theme about how slow or preoccupied white men are as they work to destroy other people's lives. These movies work so hard to make these guys look bad that I have to stop watching for I know it is painting a VERY biased view of reality that is detrimental to the future of our society, if you believe what I do about the younger children growing up and learning from what they see (or even if you don't, the effects are already present several generations, if not all). And for the younger guys growing up watching this, they have never even had the opportunity to be "pigs" before they learn that they are. And why is it that the catch phrase "men are pigs" (targeted to generalize all men as misogynistic and preoccupied with sex) is a household word today when it's obviously another biased view of reality. Ever hear of "Porky's"?? Why hasn't misandry become such a household word, for this movement in movies is misandric, or hateful towards men. The movie that actually got this going is "Higher Learning", if you want to view it from my standpoint. I actually had to laugh out loud when they displayed the white supremacist bad guy as the only white guy in a class, and furthermore he was the only one having trouble with a test as it went from black to girl to Asian to Mexican, all writing diligently as the white guy got angry because he's so stupid or didn't study, or was preoccupied with other thoughts of sex of play. And then the black population in the movie was portrayed as being overly heroic in the face of hatred. I'm not at all against showing the good in people, please don't misunderstand. I am highly against telling lies and showing warped views of reality to make them look good. I believe that for a very self-concerned reason, these unsettled social groups spread the seed of discontent and make life even harder for the already labeled white men who are so often unsubstantially called "misogynistic pigs".

katuu
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 09:11 am
Katuu

Your "warped view" may simply be someone else's "reality."
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 10:34 am
I don't know, I'd be more unhappy if I didn't want anything. If there's nothing to want, than there's nothing to look forward to, and no reason to live, really. Life is powered by want.
0 Replies
 
katuu-k2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 12:36 pm
Frank Apisa says...
Your "warped view" may simply be someone else's "reality."
...
According to encarta online, reality is a plural noun of real...

1. physically existing: having actual physical existence
3. not imaginary: existing as fact, rather than as a product of dreams or the imagination

adjective
3. philosophy about existence: concerned with independent objective existence

objective is...
1. free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
2. based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
4. philosophy existing independently of mind: existing independently of the individual mind or perception

real as a plural noun is...
1. reality: everything that exists in the actual world

and actual is...
adjective
1. real: real and existing as fact

and fact is...
noun
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something

and true is...
adjective
1. real or correct: conforming with reality or fact

and existence is...
noun
1. being real: the state of being real, actual, or current, rather than imagined, invented, or obsolete
evidence for the existence of other worlds
2. presence in a place or situation: the presence or occurrence of something in a particular place or situation

So, I argue that there can only be one "actual" reality (but...maybe that's redundant...ahaha) Anyway, I believe there can be many biased views of reality that aren't correct. A person's vission could be a bit cloudy after years of social propaganda teaching us to believe one thing or another.

......

I'm not against wanting something, rufio, but I think your assumptions that life is powered by wants is incorrect and unsupported. Yes, I too am guilty of wanting things, but I'm wise enough to avoid "wanting" something I can't have. I also have other efforts and motives keeping me alive, much more so that I can't say I live for what I want. In fact, if I had to live in a pile of sticks and eat dirt to stay alive, I believe I'd still try to be happy. Happiness is a state of mind, not an outside stimulus. I believe, though, that we have been conditioned to be happy when we get something, keeping many people unhappy if they don't want something and then obtain it...a tool of corporations and others.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 01:05 pm
Katuu

I probably should have been more careful of my wording in that last post -- and I thank you for calling my error to my attention.

I should definitely have said "...someone's notion of reality."

I am usually very, very, very careful about that, because I have written tens of thousands of words discussing the difference between "reality" and "one's notion of reality."

My point, in any case, was that you were using subjective standards to comment on someone else's subjective standards.

One really has to be careful with that kind of thing also.

I have on occasion been as bothered by some of the things you mentioned in your post (some foreigners viewing our television must think that a vast majority of American judges are black females!) -- but I think you've gone overboard.

I'll listen in.

It would make things easier if you used more paragraphing to separate individual thoughts.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 02:24 pm
True, happiness is generated from within - but happiness needs an object. Whatever that object is does not matter, since the object is not generating the happiness. But we must have an object to create an idea in our minds that brings happiness. If I lived in a pile of sticks I might dream of making the biggest pile of sticks I could, and that would keep me happy and empowered. But if I have everything I want, what is left to strive for? Life is like a game - if it were too easy, you'd quit. There is nothing you can't acheive if you try. If you convince yourself that there is nothing to want and nothing to strive for, where does that leave you? What direction will you go?
0 Replies
 
katuu-k2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 11:28 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
My point, in any case, was that you were using subjective standards to comment on someone else's subjective standards.
...

...but I think you've gone overboard.

I'll listen in.
...


I thought some of it may seem subjective, but could you please bring my attention to it?

And in thinking I've gone overboard and then saying you'll listen, do you mean about going overboard with thinking so many forms of social propaganda are present in these movies, and you will watch more closely? If this is the case, please do...but you already know I believe these things are present and that the only things going overboard are these people's incorrect notion of reality and the spreading of discontent and hate.

If you watch Higher Learning (or any other movie of the sort), which I found so predictable and almost painful to subject myself to, please let me know what you think (all this assuming you mean you'll watch for such occurences...or did I misunderstand?)...

katuu
0 Replies
 
katuu-k2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Oct, 2003 11:52 pm
rufio wrote:
True, happiness is generated from within - but happiness needs an object. Whatever that object is does not matter, since the object is not generating the happiness. But we must have an object to create an idea in our minds that brings happiness. If I lived in a pile of sticks I might dream of making the biggest pile of sticks I could, and that would keep me happy and empowered. But if I have everything I want, what is left to strive for? Life is like a game - if it were too easy, you'd quit. There is nothing you can't acheive if you try. If you convince yourself that there is nothing to want and nothing to strive for, where does that leave you? What direction will you go?


Could you support your statement that happiness needs an object? Why must we use an object to create an idea in our minds that brings happiness? Does this object have to be physical, or can it be mental? Must it be external?

Are you also claiming that the something that you strive for has to be material or external? Would it just be the dream of better sticks that could keep you happy, or would you actually have to obtain the sticks?

Why couldn't you simply be happy with the pile of sticks while other efforts motivate your life to continue on? And if you could be happy with the pile of sticks you have while other motives breath the life into your efforts, then you really don't need to strive for a better pile of sticks to be happy, no?

I'm not even sure if we are on the same page, and it seems as if you keep thinking I'm totally against striving to obtain something in life. I simply argue that you can be happy with what you have if you choose to be.

This is not meant to imply that all efforts and motives stop when someone is happy with what they have. In fact, I believe the motives and efforts that drives a happier, more content person will be more effective or successful in assisting that person to more fully realize their potential.

I also argue that a person will be happier if they learn to be content with what they have rather than being preoccupied with obtaining more material possessions (or even worse, something that is actually unatainable, be it material or otherwise), as there are more important things in life to strive for.

katuu
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
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
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » contributors to humankind or human unkind?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 12:16:12