A grudge against one and all

@Leonard,

Leonard;95264 wrote:

I think the reason is that a majority of Americans are Christian, and by assuming others are, there is the vastly held belief that America is a Christian country. Ironically, the Founding Fathers of the Constitution were not Christian, and 'one nation under god' as well as other ideologies are a product of believed religious authority. But is it not the same for Atheists? They also find their views as the only truth.

Judging by how well the contitution reaches the goals that had been set for it, the founders were either worshiping Money, or the Devil...

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;95240 wrote:

Jack:
.........................

........Voltaire long ago discarded labels as dangerous, and he was right. People can become tribal and dangerous when they associate based upon labels. However, labels can also be useful as a convenience in communication. The really important matter is self control - self control enough to not become one of those silly fools who screams about this label and that, while acting as if their chosen label is a God-send.

Hi DT (if you agree)

I was wondering who would be the first person who would take each of those questions on isms objectively and reply. I thank you for that.

Frankly i thought it would be taken threadbare at the first instance. But then when the replies came in, i thought people are too good in here... ha ha.

Anyway, I will reply to all your opinions/comments in a while. Sorry. But i found myslef in a rather embarrassing situation when my connectivity has gone, and the net providers on my complaints tells me it will take 24 (working) hours..... Which in todays business parlance means 3 days (8 hrs per day)....... mind blowing... it swept me off my foot. I am swindled ... by their 'communication' techniques.

will be back.
ps: I am at a net cafe, right now.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Hi DT,

Frankly, it would be futile at least for this thread to go into the efficacy or sustainability of the reasonableness of each of the questions i posed with regards to the held positions (within each of those isms).

Simply because that would divert the attention from the larger issue i put forth. Whether the positions or gaps or contradictions, both in principle or in practise of the isms which, people try to preach and follow, but is finally discarded, relinquished or climbed down?

This leads us to my original question.
My original poser was..... why man has to think in such compartmentalised fashion? Why cant man be open to all kinds of ideas. Accept it and then walk along, instead of walking alone.

Now, i will go thru the exercise of answering some of the queries you posed, so that it will clarify why i took the stand.

Didymos Thomas;95240 wrote:

Jack:On Liberals: what do you mean "let" their girls get pregnant? Do you imagine the parents standing in the room at the time of conception saying, "Oh, yes dear, go right ahead."? Teenage pregnancy happens, and it happens to people of all sorts.

That was supposed to be funny, i suppose. To 'let' is a very general term, and i know you know it very well, and the connotations by which it was used in here. But still let me explain it for your satisfaction. 'Let' means:
1) to allow the teenaged girl to be free enough to decide whether she is capable of deciding her sexual life, and progressively neglect the progress into pregnancy.
2) to be carefree of parental obligation to watch and monitor where the girl is late at night, or is she screwing around the neighbourhood.
3) to inculcate and educate to their children irrespective of gender the perils of early sexual interaction and related pregnancy.

This can continue, however, i leave to intelligence to know the obvious. The absence of the above principles and practise, words and deeds, is what i meant by 'to let'.

Didymos Thomas;95240 wrote:

On Conservatives: Few conservatives have a problem with condoms. As for abortion, those conservatives opposed to abortion often times believe that life begins at conception, which would make abortion murder.

We are not talking about exceptions..... we are speaking in general. Again i thought that was obvious. And i thought i wrote about life-threatening breeding ladies only.

Didymos Thomas;95240 wrote:

On Fanatics: first, the generalization regarding scripture is dubious; there is a great deal of scripture in the world, and the history of origin varies from text to text.
As to why fanatics believe they are always right, well, it's because they have so little faith. A person of true faith is not afraid of challenges to his faith.

Here, you are right. It was not a good choice of words. Thanks for pointing that out and your observation.
My point was with what 'faith' or assumptions or reasons do people (the fanatics of course) follow scriptures word by word. The contradictions of what is written and what is real is blatant and well exposed in todays times. These bigots in their blind faith do not hesitate or think that their violent actions are contrary to the spirit of the scriptures. The gap in understanding the word and spirit is what i am trying to enquire.
As for the 'history of origin' has a fundamental universality, and that is, that all those 'texts' you may or may not have read is of human origin. Unless you prove it otherwise.

Didymos Thomas;95240 wrote:

On Democrats: Without a specific example, this is tough to address. But generally, the issue in play is pragmatic politics. Of course, the whole criticism sounds just as if not more acute when leveled against Republicans.

ha ha........ may i remind you, Republicans of USA are also democrats.

Didymos Thomas;95240 wrote:

On Communism: I don't recall such beliefs in Marx.

To correct you, Marx was not the only communist. He was preceded and followed by many communists.

Didymos Thomas;95240 wrote:

On Science: Most scientists have faith of some kind, so, I think it would be incorrect to say that they only believe in the material and empirical. When it comes to the practice of science, however, that's all there is simply because science deals with the material and empirical; this is not necessarily a rejection of everything else.

I will like to contest that - it is not 'most' but many scientist who may have 'faith of some kind'. There are surveys to prove that.

Didymos Thomas;95240 wrote:

On Feminism: What you describe is not feminism. Men are not all evil and chauvinistic.

I have not described feminism. Can an ism be describd in a few lines? For that matter, i have not described or interpretated any of the isms which, i took as examples. I have picked some points against those claimed positions which i thought contradicts reality. Thats it.

Didymos Thomas;95240 wrote:

Voltaire long ago discarded labels as dangerous, and he was right. People can become tribal and dangerous when they associate based upon labels. However, labels can also be useful as a convenience in communication. The really important matter is self control - self control enough to not become one of those silly fools who screams about this label and that, while acting as if their chosen label is a God-send.

Uff......what a relief, this is god-send, the para above redeems you from my inconsequent contempt. Inadvertently, i suppose, you have taken a position, at the least, sympathising with my dislike for labels. Perhaps i should thank Voltaire for this.

When you'l say 'convenience for communication' do you refer to the approximation or categorization of a sort or set of thought-ideas or ideologies. Well i partly agree, because it is convenient for others to identify a person or associate the guy but certainly it is not to us, meaning the first person. The first person will always be defending his or her position because of the assumption of the second and/or the third person. Thanks

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

DT Nailed the biggest problem with such labels in this post. The irony of this issue, which is good to bring up - for sure - is that instead of being used to loosely understand someone's basic political, religious or philosophical orientation on something, they're twisted into polarizing stereotypes.

I guess what I'm saying is this: Were they used correctly, and with some semblence to their rightful and true definitions - without inflammatory stereotyping - there's really no problem at all. And yes, many don't look past the labels, they're bastardized into something mean and abject. The opening post is an excellent example: I'm not sure any of those are correct.

... as someone said earlier, it's how we view our world. Everyone's an individual with their particular nuances, yet when we address a certain mindset there simply needs to be language to enunciate that mindset.

Hope this adds well

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil;95985 wrote:

I'm not sure any of those are correct.

this is what i call a kind of compartmentalised thinking...........

Khethil;95985 wrote:

... as someone said earlier, it's how we view our world. Everyone's an individual with their particular nuances, yet when we address a certain mindset there simply needs to be language to enunciate that mindset. Hope this adds well

and the bolded words above is also a bad example to enunciate an opinion or theory.

Now, coming to the issue at hand, if i may humbly submit again, it is not about a specific individuals thinking. It is about the thought process.

Each individuals think for themselves. Each have their own fingerprint. It is a known. therefor, each would act according to their own mind.

My issue is simple...... Please address the main question...i shall again paste it here.... Why cant man be open to all kinds of ideas. Accept it and then walk along, instead of walking alone.

If anyone can addrees this, it would help the discussion.
I admit by citing all those question under those isms, may have diverted the attention of an enthusiast of a particular ism or ideology from the main purpose this thread was created.

What was the main purpose?
; The main purpose and the OP makes it amply clear i suppose is not against the isms per se. But rather is on wanting to know why men following a particular path jumps into another lane, sometimes criss crosss and may at an inter junction take a different path or perhaps the opposite path too.

My grudge is against this kind of thought process. For the benefit of those who may be trying to understand the problem, here is an approach route to address the issue in its correct perspective.
Sub question 1A) Are there contradictions within isms and with relation to its most contravening ism.
2B) Are there blind alleys in the path - or are there escape routes?
3C) If there are blind alleys which were known before, then why did they find themselves in that place.
4D) Are ideas a solid block of blue ice, which seldom changes its structure or position?

I hope i am clear, perhaps these sub-question will give us the jig and lead us to the right point of approach. Thanks

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;96042 wrote:

My issue is simple...... Please address the main question...i shall again paste it here.... Why cant man be open to all kinds of ideas.

Many people are, it's only when they're so negatively-delimited, as I pointed out, that they becoming "closed"; it takes an innocuous description of a mindset and place it into the most-negative contest possible. Those very examples are excellent illustrations of the narrow view; I'd thought you were maybe using satire to make the point. I'm not sure I know now, nor does it really matter. I thought it full of enough irony to comment.

But yea, to your main point: I'm a man, but that's not all I am nor should anything any man does be attributed to me individually. I'm also a father, but that's not the sum-total; it only speaks to one part of what I do or perhaps how I think. In the same vein, someone described as conservative only speaks to the preponderance of their desire to conserve traditional ways of co-existing, it's not the sum-total of their being.

I get what you're saying, but I think the problem has more to do with the type of damnation illustrated then the labels themselves. We can all be open to all ideas; it is within us. It only becomes difficult to do so when people, to whom such labels are applied, are impugned because of the negative behavioral-categorization with which they've been imbued.

Good luck with this

2 Replies

@Khethil,

Jackofalltrades;95979 wrote:

That was supposed to be funny, i suppose. To 'let' is a very general term, and i know you know it very well, and the connotations by which it was used in here. But still let me explain it for your satisfaction. 'Let' means:

I think you've missed my point. Liberal or conservative, teenage pregnancy happens in all sorts of homes. It happens under the roof of the most unconcerned parent and under the roof of the most oppressive parent.

Jackofalltrades;95979 wrote:

We are not talking about exceptions..... we are speaking in general. Again i thought that was obvious. And i thought i wrote about life-threatening breeding ladies only.

Right - I never mentioned exceptions. Instead, what I said was that most conservatives do not have a problem with the use of condoms, although some do, and that the general anti-abortion argument is that life begins at conception and that abortion is therefore murder. That's an explanation as to why people oppose abortion, a response to your question.

Jackofalltrades;95979 wrote:

As for the 'history of origin' has a fundamental universality, and that is, that all those 'texts' you may or may not have read is of human origin. Unless you prove it otherwise.

Yes, all books are written by humans, that's obvious enough. However, each scripture has a unique history: the circumstances surrounding the writing, the time and place, the purpose and motivations of the scribe, ect. The point of me saying this is that it is untrue to say generally of scripture that it has been written by "winners/destroyers/powers". The author of the Gospel of Matthew, for example, was neither one of those things.

Jackofalltrades;95979 wrote:

To correct you, Marx was not the only communist. He was preceded and followed by many communists.

I never said he was the only communist. However, he does happen to be the most prominent of communist theorists, and certainly the most influential. The point is that communists do not, by and large, believe as you say they do.

Jackofalltrades;95979 wrote:

I have not described feminism.

You asked why feminists believe something, something that they do not believe. This means that you implied something about feminism, and that is a sort of description.

Jackofalltrades;95979 wrote:

For that matter, i have not described or interpretated any of the isms which, i took as examples. I have picked some points against those claimed positions which i thought contradicts reality. Thats it.

The problem is that many of your examples are not true to the isms you apply them to. For example, feminists do not believe that all men are evil.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;96250 wrote:

the most unconcerned parent,

most oppressive parent.

Right - I never mentioned exceptions.??
most conservatives

communists do not, by and large, believe as you say they do.

You asked why feminists believe something, something that they do not believe. .

your examples are not true to the isms you apply them to.

Do you work for Gallop Polls by any chance, or......am i speaking to God The Omniscient.

Yours faithfully.

Edit;

okay about Mathew..... sorry I did not venture enough to write the professions/occupations/affiliation/associateships/adherents/followers
/discipleship/preceptors/charlatans/magicians/professors/saints/lordships
/prophets/angels/philosophers/son of gods/tribal kings/chieftains/pundits of all the script writers. i should be more circumspect while writing on fanatism, i guess. But hey, i thought i had admitted my mistake on that regard. Wonder how you missed that.:perplexed:

frankly it is tiring..... Well ..... lets be serious from now on. you would agree that we should not miss the woods for the trees. Again I pray to thee.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;96255 wrote:

Do you work for Gallop Polls by any chance, or......am i speaking to God The Omniscient.

No, I work at a gas station. And I don't need to be omniscient to correct generalizations that simply do not apply. You think feminists believe all men to be evil, but I have never read such a thing in feminist literature. So, I say something about it.

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Khethil;96054 wrote:

Many people are, it's only when they're so negatively-delimited, as I pointed out, that they becoming "closed"; it takes an innocuous description of a mindset and place it into the most-negative contest possible. Those very examples are excellent illustrations of the narrow view; I'd thought you were maybe using satire to make the point. I'm not sure I know now, nor does it really matter. I thought it full of enough irony to comment.

I thank you for these serious comments. Now, i should appreciate you for taking time out to study the point...and realise that there is some bit of skepticism and sarcasm, in the 'excellent' illustrations. And yes there was a subtle black humour in that, now that i reread it a couple of times, like you i also think there is satire in it. However, what perplexes me is how do people miss the main point. Deliberation and specialisation is getting to be too boring these days. Thats speaking for myself.

Khethil;96054 wrote:

But yea, to your main point: I'm a man, but that's not all I am nor should anything any man does be attributed to me individually. I'm also a father, but that's not the sum-total; it only speaks to one part of what I do or perhaps how I think. In the same vein, someone described as conservative only speaks to the preponderance of their desire to conserve traditional ways of co-existing, it's not the sum-total of their being.

I get what you're saying, but I think the problem has more to do with the type of damnation illustrated then the labels themselves. We can all be open to all ideas; it is within us. It only becomes difficult to do so when people, to whom such labels are applied, are impugned because of the negative behavioral-categorization with which they've been imbued.

Good luck with this

I agree......... with your analysis. The 'preponderence of their desire'........ is a good point to start with. this fairly can be described as a factor - a major factor in the decision making process. This holds true, in general to all people, irrespective of gender, age, caste or class,.

Now, lets talk about the closed mindsets, narrowness, negative behavioral categorisation (can we call this indoctrination/conditioning or a milder socialisation) concepts and process that individuals and communities go through across the board. We all have closed mindsets. Unless it is ...due to training or a great genius mind. I too am having a closed mind. Only i am trying not to be. You may accuse me of pretending that. Fair enough.

Preponderence of desire, can also be termed as wishfullness, levels of expectation, ambition, acheiving certain desired goals. If you agree - all this associated term-concepts follows logically in a given general population.

Now, let us take the conservative example which you picked up. Do each of those hardcore conservative commit suicides if they find themslevs in a quandary or a loop wherein they are confronted with a situation where they find there own god fearing son declaring himslef as an homosexual, or their teenage child is pregnant, etc.

My submission is that, no, not all go and take that extreme step. Isn't it?
So, that means, these parent of conservative background, suddenly has to adjust to a more liberal-sounding ethos. Some of such parents recede into a coccoon, or the bravehearts choses to take it on their stride and there are others who would cut their relationships forever.

Now, if these assumptions are true to the general trends (in such categories), my interest is to know, how and why did those parents who adjusted to their childrens misadventure/misdeamour/delinquency/etc/etc/etc, take a decision to accept the fact of life or nature - and undervalue the values they so defended all their life.

Does not the irony...a cruel one, hit the face like a cold splash of water on a cold winter night.

My interest lies more specifically at the issue of acceptence and adjustment of value systems in the cruel canvas of life.
Having learn't from this cruel paradoxical situations, does it not erode the faith or belief in the values they held on to.
If so, is there not a contradiction? okay let me end it here for now. thanks

---------- Post added 10-09-2009 at 10:46 PM ----------

Didymos Thomas;96271 wrote:

No, I work at a gas station. And I don't need to be omniscient to correct generalizations that simply do not apply. You think feminists believe all men to be evil, but I have never read such a thing in feminist literature. So, I say something about it.

Hi DT,

you have some misconception on the word 'generalisation'. You are taking it as 'majority view'. You missed in my initial post, where i start on Liberalism and Conservatism - the word 'some' which means a few or a minority...... i thought it would be obvious thereafter that i am refering to those view-points or decision intiators which are examples and nothing is sacrosanct about those examples.

But you choose to nit-pick the trivial, and the obvious, and the frivilous.
Like it is obvious that all feminists cannot think that all men are evil.
It is simply not possible by your own reasoning which i found were fair to an extent. It is also not factually or logically possible.
Moreover, i never mentioned i believed what they believe in. (neither did i mention my examples are true or are facts - you are assumming things). You are deliberately twisting the issue in a parsimonious manner.

You are also unable to understand the applications of 'examples'.

Okay, if you want my apology for writing it because you were unwilling to see the context, and saw only through a narrow angle. I apologise.

But what if i bringforth a literature that says men are evil. What would your position be. ?

Anyway, i beleive you are the most read individual, and so start believing in your beliefs.
:brickwall:

yours faithfully.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;94608 wrote:

Atheists: Why do they think there is no spiritual side to man, Why do they endlessly debate on evolution as against religious beliefs.

I'm probably going to be tarred and feathered for saying this, but as a former Atheist of 10 years, I think that most true Atheists don't seek out these kind of debates because they already know what they believe.

The kind of atheists that go out of their way to try to "convert" people are what I refer to as Fundamentalist Atheists. They are no different than religious fundamenentalists who do the same thing.

Typically, it's the agnostics who get into debates with theists because they (the agnostics) are not sure what they believe so it's a good place to challenge their own concepts.

That's my take on it.

--IntoTheLight--

0 Replies

A grudge against one and all

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know