Kindness?

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

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.

Shepaints, I see such a compelled altruism as more a case of learning social responsibility rather than kindness.
Nevertheless, I can imagine how community service might introduce
some students (those who have fulfilled certain psycho-spiritual prerequisites)
to "the joy of kindness."

Chumly wrote:

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.

Yes, in general, I think our social structures are lacking in enlightened kindness. In my opinion there seems to be the tendency to go too far to either one end of the spectrum or the other. It seems that there is often an air of extreme leniency- which may look like kindness, but isn't really- or extreme rigidity- which doesn't even pretend to be kindness- although it some cases it may be.
It seems that it has become increasingly rare to encounter or read about even-handed and fairly applied justice.
I don't know that I think kindness should be a function of justice.
I'd feel much more secure knowing that a jury was looking at a case clearly and honestly, without having their perceptions clouded by what they think kindness might require of them. That's not to say they should be unkind- I just think they should be objective.
And I would hope that a judge's personality characteristics would not impact the ruling of the court, and a judge who wore his or her kindness on the bench would tend to impact the impartiality which his or her role required, just as surely as a judge's innate cruelty would.

But yes, in general Chumly, I don't think societies are kind. And I think most small groups are even less kind to those outside their groups.
Exclusivity is another concept that I think is antithetical to kindness.

Given that a consequential portion of man's successes are direct result of the group effort, the question might well be asked: if through automation and robotization one individual could have the same level of success as what once took groups, would such future successes be inherently more kind due to their individualistic impetus?

Quote:

David- I agree that the primary purpose of school is to educate

.
Extorting unpaid labor for the benefit of third parties
( the community ) and then CHEERING about it, is not education;
if the conveyance of information were the goal,
it wud only necessary to SPEAK to them,
not put them to work enforced by threats of concealing
their prior achievments that thay have already established.
What wud a union say about that,
if this were inflicted upon its members ?

Its a scandal, the same in principle as the NYS Comptroller Alan Hevesi
being forced to resign and convicted of felony
for misappropriating the labor of his NYS chauffer for his wife 's benefit.

Instead of CHEERING about what thay have done
to the victims, the educational leaders shud hang their heads in shame
( before tar and feathers r appropriately applied; and after ).

Quote:

But during the course of that education, personal virtues that are
esteemed in our society are also instilled, or at least taught-

Its good to teach them factual information,
but it is radically rong for a teacher to tell students his opinion
of morality and then try to make them BELIEVE it,
for the same reason that he has no right to convert them to his religion
or to his political party and to penalize them for being recalcitrant.

Quote:

honesty (no cheating on tests or copying homework),

This is usually conveyed within an ambience of THREAT:
" If u do a Ted Kennedy on us,
we 'll do a Harvard on U " ; i.e., a statement of cause and effect.
I see nothing rong with that.

Quote:

discipline (study if you want to get good grades), diligence (always try to do your best).

There is nothing rong with ADVICE, given by anyone,
with the understanding that the recipient will decide
whether or not to accept it, and the advisor will not endeavor
to coerce his acceptance thereof,
nor will the advisor exploit the advisee 's unpaid labor
and then brag to the victim how lucky he is to be thusly abused,
as thay r doing in Canada; bunch of charletans; belong in a cheap carnival.

Quote:

Do you consider this effort to instill those values,
which is apart from and ancillary to the communication of information, brainwashing as well?

That depends upon whether coercion is inflicted upon the advisees
and whether thay r being cheated out of their wages.

David, I must make a confession to you. I can't say that I understand your statements with any depth or clarity because I have not been able to read them. I probably have to take some kind of pill before making the effort--probably speed. Your abbreviations, colors and size changes remind me of the psychedelic sixties when strobe lights threatened me with migraines.
Carry on as you wil; it's your right to do so (because you make it so, not because I grant it). But know that you may be restricting your audience by your style.
God knows I should not talk. I suspect my style alienates many people. It is rare that anyone (except for a small group of like-minded A2Kers) respond to my efforts.

David, I must make a confession to you. I can't say that I understand your statements with any depth or clarity because I have not been able to read them. I probably have to take some kind of pill before making the effort--probably speed. Your abbreviations, colors and size changes remind me of the psychedelic sixties when strobe lights threatened me with migraines.
Carry on as you wil; it's your right to do so (because you make it so, not because I grant it). But know that you may be restricting your audience by your style.
God knows I should not talk. I suspect my style alienates many people. It is rare that anyone (except for a small group of like-minded A2Kers) respond to my efforts.

The topics, specific and niche-like as they often are, may alienate people.
If anything though, your kind, concise and approachable style draws people in JLN.

Quote:

Newspeak David? Double+good?

Orwell, 1984 ?

Quote:

I've noticed that the way we asess punishment
in our society is based on the damage done
rather than the intention of the one receiving punishment.

OK, try this:
if a man decides to kill several designated folks next week,
but stumbles and suffers disabling injuries during the interim,
do u believe that he shud he be " punished " for his incohate and subjective intentions ??

Quote:

It seems that punishment is almost sort of a revenge
or something to help the victim(s) cope with some great tragedy that's happened.

Yes. ( What do u mean: " ALMOST " ??? )
That is the essence of the social contract, to wit:
If u, the individual citizen do not avenge yourself
or your loved ones, we, government will do it FOR U,
so stop running family feuds.

Quote:

... when we send people to jail, suspend people in our schools, ect... It's not to actually try to help the "Lawbreaker" reform or to teach them that what they did was wrong, it's to:

1-Try to scare other people

and to scare the malefactor HIMSELF

Quote:

into not committing these crimes by showing the consequences of doing so, or at least scare them into being extra careful so they don't accidently commit a crime.

Yes

Quote:

and 2-Help the victim(s) feel a little better about the crime committed to them.

Yes

Quote:

"If, somehow, I get wrong done to me, I don't care if it was an accident or not

Accidents are not criminally punishable,
unless there is criminal negligence involved.

Quote:

or if the wrondoer was sorry, I just want that person to pay."-
Is generally what the majority of the population is thinking when
something bad happens to them.

Is there a REASON
that the majority of the population shud CARE
about the state of the bad guy 's emotions,
instead of what he DID ??

Quote:

Also, I made a little saying... thingy--A while ago and I'd like to share it.:

"The internal struggle in most people today is wether to act on what IS or to act on what OUGHT TO BE."

I think this is something that we have a serious problem with in the world today. in order to make this little saying-thingy a little more clear I'll take an easy topic: Immigration.

What OUGHT TO BE, is people who wish to work hard to make a proper living ought to have the right to. If anyone wants to come in our country and work for less, then so be it, they're humans just like us and they deserve the right to.

The HELL thay do !
This country belongs to US not to them
and thay have no right to enter it without our permission.

Quote:

What IS, is that we care more about Americans
than the citizens of other countrys

.
Of COURSE !
What do u EXPECT ??????????

Quote:

We look out for ourselves first, then we look out for others.

That appears to be the case.
We HAVE given a lot of handouts to aliens.
There is NO constitutional authority to do that.
The cash belongs to the Americans who made it; to NO ONE else.
When government looks out for others,
it is by USURPATION of power and stealing American cash for alien benefit.
Any government officer who does that
deserves to be imprisoned for it.

Quote:

If we just let them come into our country, our Americans will lose jobs,
and we also run the risk of overpopulation.

Worse than THAT, thay can contaminate the electorate
with alien ideologies, resulting in the loss of Americanism for anyone.

Quote:

See what I mean? This can be applied to the majority of all Dilemmas today.
(I should of went with the "Obese people have to buy an extra seat" subject) Hehe.

Quote:

Given that a consequential portion of man's successes are direct result of the group effort, the question might well be asked: if through automation and robotization one individual could have the same level of success as what once took groups, would such future successes be inherently more kind due to their individualistic impetus?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but successes (inanimate ones- as in results or products or creations) can't be kind. I guess if the same thing was achieved by a group or an individual- it would still be the same thing- wouldn't it- whether it was achieved by a kind group or an unkind group or a kind individual or an unkind individual...

But this again, speaks to the point that I believe intentions and results are two totally different entities- and often completely unrelated.

In terms of policies being more kindly in intent and result if they were developed by an individual- again that would depend on the innate personality characteristics of the individual. But as we live in a democracy- that's not really even an option.

Not so from your arguments, as one man at the helm of an automated robotized endeavor would have a non-group direct effect (which again from your arguments) would be more likely to engender kindness as opposed to the same considerations as per a group effect.

Chumly wrote:

[Not so from your arguments, as one man at the helm of an automated robotized endeavor would have a non-group direct effect (which again from your arguments) would be more likely to engender kindness as opposed to the same considerations as per a group effect.

Chumly- I have no idea what this means. I wasn't aware that I was putting forth an argument, as you didn't voice an opinion with which I was disagreeing in any way- you asked a question and I was answering it to the best of my ability, fully mindful that anything I say is only my opinion.

I can't even begin to picture an "automated robotized endeavor" which would embody or encompass the purely human characteristic of kindness.