Kindness?

aidan wrote:

I've almost come to the conclusion that social groupings are in fact what might be most antithetical to kindness.

Mostly likely because of the "herd mentality".

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

aidan wrote:
I've almost come to the conclusion
that social groupings are in fact what might be most antithetical to kindness.

Mostly likely because of the "herd mentality".

When we attend our social groups we CAN be kind to our fellow members.
I have successfully tested that theory.
It can be FUN. I have also applied it, occasionally to non-members.

Some of the members have objected.
David

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
snood wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
snood wrote:
OmSig,
Does that right to "raising an Army" by Congress cease to apply
if they do it by a draft?

Not in MY opinion.

Other libertarians disagree with me;
( we clashed about that during the Third World War ).
David

( P. S.: Congress has no " right " to raise an army.
It has the power to do so. " )

Kind of hard to understand you on this. Do you believe that raising an army by way of a draft is slavery?

Yes; that conclusion is inescapable.

No other conclusion is possible, David.

We agree, Dr. Miller.
I hope u r having a nice weekend.
David

0 Replies

I'm still trying to get you to admit the implications of your stated beliefs here. If you believe a military draft to be slavery, and you believe the congress can rightfully initiate a draft to "raise an army", then you believe a kind of slavery is acceptable in the service of one's country.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

So then although you decry the "slavery" of imposed government service,
you are saying its acceptable as long as its in military service?

Yes.

I agree with John Locke that government found its genesis
in folks banding together for purposes of defense and of vengeance.
DEFENSE means preserving one 's very existence, and one freedom
from whatever impositions hostile aliens may choose to inflict upon them
( e.g., robbery, rape, murder etc., which in fact were known to commonly occur ).

In theory, people r perfectly free to decide to create a group whose
rules require them to be one another 's servants; in the presence
of conscious VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT to do so, there is nothing rong
with that. I deplore springing it on the members by SURPRISE,
WITHOUT their prior agreement.
Hence, if the leaders of Ontario GOT PERMISSION from
the high school students upon whom their demands have fallen
to require service to the community, THEN it might be OK.
Without that permission,
Ontario is raping the students who r so unfortunate as to reside therein.

Requiring this social service is of no better status
than requiring them to give the mayor or the principal a tip,
maybe $5 each, or $100.

Putting the price of social service upon getting their diplomas
IS SELLING THEM SOMETHING THAT THAY HAVE ALREADY EARNED.

Suppose the boss says to his employees
that he will pay them their respective salaries, after thay have earned them,
IF first thay stop by his house and clean the place up,
maybe paint it, and give him and his family massages.
I don 't believe that is OK,
but that is the executed filosofy of Ontario as to its students.

For SHAME !

David

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I'm still trying to get you to admit the implications of your stated beliefs here. If you believe a military draft to be slavery, and you believe the congress can rightfully initiate a draft to "raise an army", then you believe a kind of slavery is acceptable in the service of one's country.

My position is that slavery in the service of one's country
is NOT acceptable, with ONE exception, to wit: DEFENSE;
i.e., the preservation of existence from hostile depredation.
David

0 Replies

The rationale of my position
is that without co-ordinated defense,
alien aggressors cud n wud invade and subject
the indigenous populace to conditions of slavery
or of annihilation, at their discretion.

Accordingly, the local populace gains nothing
by taking an absolutist position against military conscription.
David

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

I've almost come to the conclusion that social groupings
are in fact what might be most antithetical to kindness.

I think people are much more likely to be kind as and to individuals than they are when within a group. And by that I mean, someone on his or her own is more likely to be kind to others, and also may be more likely to experience kindness from others- especially if they've been identified as belonging to a group that carries negative connotations.

While walking with a group
( e.g., at the Bronx Zoo )
I have had group members ( my friends ) counsel me not to
throw dimes n quarters toward children in the area
( e.g., a group of Boyscouts, sitting on a bench ).

That seems to be antithetical to kindness.
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Miller wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
snood wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
snood wrote:
OmSig,
Does that right to "raising an Army" by Congress cease to apply
if they do it by a draft?

Not in MY opinion.

Other libertarians disagree with me;
( we clashed about that during the Third World War ).
David

( P. S.: Congress has no " right " to raise an army.
It has the power to do so. " )

Kind of hard to understand you on this. Do you believe that raising an army by way of a draft is slavery?

Yes; that conclusion is inescapable.

No other conclusion is possible, David.

We agree, Dr. Miller.
I hope u r having a nice weekend.
David

I think we always agree, David!! Razz

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Miller wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
snood wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
snood wrote:
OmSig,
Does that right to "raising an Army" by Congress cease to apply
if they do it by a draft?

Not in MY opinion.

Other libertarians disagree with me;
( we clashed about that during the Third World War ).
David

( P. S.: Congress has no " right " to raise an army.
It has the power to do so. " )

Kind of hard to understand you on this. Do you believe that raising an army by way of a draft is slavery?

Yes; that conclusion is inescapable.

No other conclusion is possible, David.

We agree, Dr. Miller.
I hope u r having a nice weekend.
David

I think we always agree, David!!

That is a source of confidence
and serenity in my earthly life, Doctor.

0 Replies

OmSig,
Thanks for the straightforward answer. 'preciate it.

0 Replies

shepaints wrote:

Quote:
Students are also required by law in Ontario to attend school from the ages of 6 - 16.

I see the community service requirement as being very positive.

Marx and Stalin wud LOVE u for that.
It is the basis of their filosofy.

This shows that Canada is NOT a free country.

Quote:

Parents usually expect children to contribute something to the running of the household, in terms of doing chores, for example. Children in Ontario are able to take advantage of a myriad of communitiy activities from the time they are very young. These activities only exist because of the unflagging efforts of thousands of community volunteers. Why should they be no expectation of reciprocity?

This is the same as saying
that when a bum rushes up to your car
when u r stopped for a red lite
and cleans your windshield while u r yelling
" hay, get the hell away from my car ! "
that the bum has a right to get paid for his efforts.

DID THE CHILDREN REQUEST THOSE SERVICES or ACTIVITIES ?
If not, and if thay were simply THRUST UPON THEM,
then thay have no duty to pay for them, neither in cash nor in labor.

If u disagree,
then I ask u:
If I grab u while u r walking down the street
and thrust vitamins down your throat, against your will,
DO I HAVE A RIGHT TO GET PAID for them ( from your cash, or your LABOR )
if thay r GOOD VITAMINS ?

Quote:
To me it is healthy for kids to get away from TV
and devote a few hours to the community.

Suppose that to ME,
it is healthy for YOU to maintain good dental hygene,
get plenty of sleep, avoid sugar and red meat and get a good wife.
Does that state-of-mind
give me the right to grab you,
force u to brush your teeth,
drag u into your bed at an early time of my choosing,
steal your cake and candy,
and pull the prime rib out of your mouth b4 u can swallow ?

and then get u married to a woman of my choice,
whether u like it or not ?
( justified by MY opinion
that this is HEALTHY for YOU ???? )

Quote:

There are myriads of jobs to choose from, in all kinds of areas of interest, the environment, social, recreational etc. Some examples might be helping out at a community sports event, picking up litter in a park or forest, stocking shelves in a food bank. I think it helps kids to appreciate a lot that they take for granted.

In America, this is prohibited by the 13th Amendment
of the Supreme Law of the Land,
against INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE,
but u can have a different opinion.

If the students don 't work fast enuf,
maybe u can have some enforcers
stand behind them with whips.
In another century,
we did that in the southern part of America.

Are thay allowed to sing,
while thay labor ?

Do the Canadians chain them together, at the ankles ?

David

0 Replies

This thread started out nicely, but it has become something I find very distasteful. I'm out of here.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

This thread started out nicely,
but it has become something I find very distasteful. I'm out of here.

YOU can believe that inflicting involuntary servitude
upon the young is * NICE. *

That is a point of vu from which I will DISSENT.

David

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

I think people are much more likely to be kind as and to individuals than they are when within a group.

If so that does not speak well for man's social structures / institutions and suggests that the courts (for example) may lack (the presumably requisite) kindness to operate in a fair manner; unless you can argue that the courts (for example) can operate in a fair manner without kindness, as justice (good luck finding true justice) is (presumably) blind, but I would think justice should still not be unkind (at a minimum).

I inserted enough caveats to sink a small ship, but you can read it through without reading the bracketed parts if you want to.

0 Replies

If someone kills a lot of people,
without a good reason,
he shud be killed in return.
That is just.
That is not kind to the perpetrator.

If he were set free and given millions of dollars,
that wud be very kind to him,
but not just, under the circumstances.
David

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

This thread started out nicely, but it has become something I find very distasteful. I'm out of here.

Too bad, as your posts are genuinely appreciated by me!

0 Replies

I am going to commit an act of kindness personally, and despite my
natural inclination to respond to your comments, I will also depart
the thread.

0 Replies

shepaints wrote:

I am going to commit an act of kindness personally, and despite my
natural inclination to respond to your comments, I will also depart
the thread.

I will accept that as a CONFESSION
that your authoritarian remarks cannot be justified.
David

0 Replies

David, it's not so much your ideas as it is your psychedelic style. Very irritating.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know