Rick Horton

I have GOT to see this film. Thanks for posting that clip. Y'know, it sucks but he is pretty much right, especially about modern life. And being a little digit in a realm of vast digits makes me feel like I'm NOT LIVING. Not for real. I want to hold up a sword! Yell at the sky! CLAIM something I want and hold onto it until I'm bled to death over the souls of the masses of the undead, yet unliving drones. There are always these ideals and morals and noble ways to live, but at the end of the day in this world I am an animal that I see as one who has the urge to be master over my dominion. That's where nobody else's morals can touch my soul. All of the comprimise in the world can't simply justify the stripping, little by little of the will to LIVE. And for man, or "me" to live, I don't think I need to, or should explain all of my actions to all of these people with all of these philosophies whether they seem righteous or not. I live by morals, but I don't expect them from others, and in this world you will not have your morals respected. In the face of this, there are times when I feel justified in taking what I want if I can get away with it. Like a pirate. I mean, we live in a pressure chamber of people imposing beliefs, systems, philosophies, doctrines, laws, manners, etc... It's almost embarrasing to admit I'm one of these "humans" Hell, a damn Lion lives more than we do.... But I digress..... This "network" is so vast, so social, so restricting, constricting, and so dehumanizing, that we live more like Bees than what my deep insides tell me we should be doing, which is ruling over our own individual desires. For better or worse, THAT is living. Everything else is surrendering one piece of your will after another for the sake of comfort, acceptance, status, obligation, etc..... HOW FUCKING PATHETIC. BE A MAN.

Thanks. That is so funny!

I will tell you that in my own life I have known SEVERAL kids who had very loving family environments, but turned to the dark side for a multitude of "outside" reasons. Reasons beyond the doors of the home.

Right, so you can't draw any solid conclusions yet - that means in either direction. Which means a lot more research is needed before we can make any grand statements like "children only bully if they've been bullied." That's all I'm saying. I agree. And I'll add that philosophy doesn't necessarily give anybody moral highground in deciding what is right for other families. The parent child dynamic is too complicated to have an outsider with too little information draw some kind of conclusion. The child's very life is supported by the parents, and if not for them doing so the child would be either dead, or in an orphanage. That being said, There are lineages of families that have certain methods of teaching, and not all teaching necessarily has to hold values such as virtue, nobility, non aggression, etc... Some families just didn't come from areas that would have worked in, and still don't. It's a very high bar to meet, when you are trying to interfere with a family issue. If there is some obvious physical abuse, or some obvious mental abuse that endangers the childs life then yeah. I think an outsider may need to help out. But if people just start pointing fingers at families because of an unhappy child, that's just really not responsible unless the uttmost effort, expertise, and care is used. I'm ashamed of the comments in this thread from Alan Chapman. This is no simple matter of, " Oh a kid is bullying, therefore his parents are bullying. " That is just the most irresponsible thing I've heard lately even OUTSIDE of a philosophy forum that prizes itself on reason.

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity. Wait. Are you implying that children free of abuse in the home cannot be abusive, themselves? Please give proof of THAT. That claim is actually one of the fundamental claims made on this site. It's one I've taken a lot of issue with. See my initial post if you're interested. "Born Evil?": Ponerology as a Transcendent, Unifying Priority Thanks. I wasn't aware of any of this on this board, and it's probably not even discussed here often, right? I mean, I don't remember a time in my life where I considered a spanking to be abuse when I was spanked. In fact, I would test my parents up to that point, to see how far I could push them. They taught, and taught, and tried to teach, but I was really stubborn. I'd push all the way till I saw my Dad pull the belt out of his jean loops like some kind of Martial artist. I knew THAT was the point I couldn't cross. He'd spank, and sometimes use a belt, although I think more to make my mother feel bad, lol. He would hit the sheets and smile, and say shhh.... Then my mom would yell, GARY!!!!! Stop THAT!!! But he'd only just spanked me, and made it sound like he hit me with his belt. He was guilting my mother because he'd be watching football, or doing yardwork and I would be a little butthole to my mother some how or another and she'd tell him OVER and over to do something. He'd hold off until he got really annoyed and the blow up at me, scare me, run into my room chasing me with his belt, but he'd turn it into a little show for my mom. Probably so she wouldn't bother him the next time. She'd be afraid he'd belt me really hard or something. Anyhow, I grew up in a tough ass neighborhood, and my parents toughened me up enough to be able to walk with my head held high, but still instilled in me, mercy. They LOVE me so much. I used to spank my kids, but only in dangerous situations where they didn't have the ability to understand the gravity of what they were doing. Like if one walked toward the street and I said, hey, come back. Stay away from the street, but the little guy would keep walking and sort of smile at me like he's testing me I'd go grab and spank right there on the spot without hesitation, so they FEAR my spanking and associate that pain with the situation, or traffic and not listening. I do believe that that is very justified. I don't begrudge anybody that never spanks. I just don't begrudge a well placed spanking, either. Adults forget how much they were not just good little kids, but how at times they were testy, mischeivous, dangerously curious, and just plain ungrateful. I know I was, and it's easy for me to blame my parents for my upbringing, but I was a little asshole, too. Probably because I've always had a strong will, and I would NEVER fault my upbringing for something I cherish so much, as my STRONG ass will.

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity. Wait. Are you implying that children free of abuse in the home cannot be abusive, themselves? Please give proof of THAT.

Please reference a single documented case of a child raised in a loving, nurturing home, free of abuse and neglect, who was unable to restrain his/her aggression and impulsivity. I know this isn't for me, but what does the question have to do with anything?

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse? I think it's bullshit for anybody to point fingers at parents prematurely without having all parties involved, and a thourough examination. There is no, no, no smoking gun in these cases, even if there are strong tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the parents are abusive in one way or another, but certainly there are degrees in everything and I know "I'M" not going to judge without a WHOLE lot more information, facts, interviews, etc... I agree. I understand a lot of people on this forum have very strong feelings about child abuse and I do too. But when that flows over into being willing to make accusations without enough evidence, I think that's very dangerous. If there is any reason to suspect abuse, then a thorough investigation should be done. But to accuse someone of child abuse simply because their child is bullying is extremely irresponsible. And when I read claims like "children bully because they are bullied" I find it very speculative. I have no doubt many bullies do result from poor parenting or abuse. But I find it unfounded at this point in time to claim that explains 100% of the cases. And as I've pointed out before, if there is a caring, loving parent whose child turns out this way despite that and then without evidence you label them an abuser, you've heaped insult upon injury. I think it's important to try to avoid an injustice on either side of this as much as possible and that requires gathering all of the facts, not jumping to conclusions. Anyhow, We all mostly know, especially us philosophy lovers that it would be really useless to interview the kids about bullying without their parents being interviewed as well. Not to blame them, but to find out what they might think is wrong too. And if somehow they expose abusive tendencies you could take it from there, but NOT without first talking to the parents. Kids say the damndest things, for the damndest reasons, and even the most direct statements from children can have pretty esoteric roots. You have to decypher what kids say in many cases because they don't even want to talk, or are afraid. They could not only be afraid of the parents, but also feel coerced by the interviewer to give answers that lean ways that are very distorted so it's better to have EVERYBODY involved before crucifying ANYBODY.

right, and furthermore, who says it's not peers who are influencing the kids to bully. They can influence each other, and that's a really strong possibility. Or, maybe there are abusive teachers, drug dealers in the neighborhoods, etc.... Playing expert is pretty arrogant, and irresponsible.

So as I asked before, if a child is bullying then you are comfortable without any other evidence condemning the parents as having abused them? And what actions would you be comfortable with being taken as a result, if you have seen the children bullying but no other evidence of abuse? I think it's bullshit for anybody to point fingers at parents prematurely without having all parties involved, and a thourough examination. There is no, no, no smoking gun in these cases, even if there are strong tendencies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the parents are abusive in one way or another, but certainly there are degrees in everything and I know "I'M" not going to judge without a WHOLE lot more information, facts, interviews, etc...

It's a tough world.

I'm wondering what you guys think about things like opening doors, or pulling chairs out for women.

You're right. It's irresponsible to talk with children about things without the inclusion of their parents.

Yeah. I like this perspective. It seems to be the way it is. Not only in Christianity but in by far the most powerful movers of men. Man seems to latch onto something stronger than himself, which is understandable although that comes with a high price, and what's more powerful than a man who controls even beyond the natural life span. A God that promises that if you don't live while on Earth, if you turn the other cheek, and if you let yourself be controlled, imprisoned, and ultimately surrender your will "totally" you will get into his fraternity of the afterlife. If you, however, do things by your desire, free will, etc, you will burn forever. Obviously this gives the weak an edge they could NEVER get over the strong without the invention of God. God is the nanny nanny boo boo, you have me now, but you're gonna pay later, way of controling men, and sadly it's given weak, inoble men that edge pretty successfully for about 2000 years now and it's distorted the reality of human life so greatly that we feel now that we have to have a justification to "another man, or men" as to why we will do anything. This is leading to men just saying no to life itself, so they can at least be comfortable. But this is definitely not living, and why should the non living here, receive "eternal life" there? That would be so perverse that only weak men could have designed such a cowardly, deceptive, dishonest, way to gain some power.

Anarchists wouldn't need guns?

This is a really mind splitting presentation.

This is so odd, isn't it? She really has no clue what libertarians believe, does she? It's creepy how us free thinking Libertarian/Voluntaryists/aNARCHISTS are almost a different specieas than the talking heads and icons of the Mainstream mediaticians.

How am I misleading the conversations? We hit a spot where everybody was in a feud over definitions, but everybody refused to find agreement on terms. Look up words you don't know the meaning of. That's how you get beyod this problem. I've explained why it's proper to use words proper meanings and not to go changing them. The words and meanings don't need to be questioned fo authenticity. The meanings of the words are what make those words mean anything at all. Either you use a word that has a meaning, or you use a different, or different set of words to describe what you need to describe, but if you use a word that already has become agreed upon by the majority of people, which is reflected in the dictionary, then you should use it propertly so you are understood, properly. Changing or redefining words is not useful. Using the right words, or group of words to describe something is useful. Instead of asking what a word means, "to me", just look it up. It doesn't matter what I want a word to mean. It matters what a word DOES mean. You can look a word up, and then make an argument based on what you learned about the word that was used. The person who uses the word uses the word assuming you know its meaning, and that if you don't you can look it up. I can only communicate when I feel comfortable. I do not feel comfortable posting in this thread anymore. I want to be understood. That's not going to happen so I'll leave now. If you want to be understood then speak words other people have access to define without asking you what the words mean over and over. Use words from our lexicon. The dictionary will help you. If I make you uncomfortable because I say that, then just avoid live debates for sure because nobody is going to keep stopping to clarify definitions of words. Conversations don't go anywhere that way. I've never seen a debate where the opposing sides keep demanding definitions. We accept that we are speaking the same language. You don't argue by what you think your opponent thinks a word means. You argue on what the word means. I don't mind at all if you don't want to converse any longer with me because it's not useful for me either at this point to keep stopping conversations to go through all of this crap.

How am I misleading the conversations? We hit a spot where everybody was in a feud over definitions, but everybody refused to find agreement on terms. Look up words you don't know the meaning of. That's how you get beyod this problem. I've explained why it's proper to use words proper meanings and not to go changing them. The words and meanings don't need to be questioned fo authenticity. The meanings of the words are what make those words mean anything at all. Either you use a word that has a meaning, or you use a different, or different set of words to describe what you need to describe, but if you use a word that already has become agreed upon by the majority of people, which is reflected in the dictionary, then you should use it propertly so you are understood, properly. Changing or redefining words is not useful. Using the right words, or group of words to describe something is useful. Instead of asking what a word means, "to me", just look it up. It doesn't matter what I want a word to mean. It matters what a word DOES mean. You can look a word up, and then make an argument based on what you learned about the word that was used. The person who uses the word uses the word assuming you know its meaning, and that if you don't you can look it up.

I think I've heard it said, although not "necessarily" by Mr. M. Here is the definition of spirituality from dictionary.com spir·it·u·al [spir-i-choo-uhl] Show IPA adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal. 2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach tolife. 3. closely akin in interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the professor's spiritual heir in linguistics. 4. of or pertaining to spirits or to spiritualists; supernatural or spiritualistic. 5. characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is moreof a spiritual type than her rowdy brother. ------ I see how it would fit by studying the definitions and noticing that number 3 would be the definition that makes sense with an atheist statement. By first looking up the definition to make sure there is a problem, I realize that there is no error in using that word. Since the dictionary reflects definitions of words that are widely used, there are enough people who understand the usage of spirituality in this alternative context for atheists to communicate something about there core and refer to it with maybe a term of respect, or reverence to the mere core itself, of reason. It's an eloquent way to say you have a problem with your very reasoning. You have this struggle that you feel you must overcome so you can continue an honorable, fulfilling life as you journey through your actions and decisions.

by the way, 1984 is totally irrelevent. Our dictionary is not destroying words, it is adding words. The reality is that we have more words now than we did in previous versions of the dictionary. This is consistent. New words come from expressing ideas that old words don't fully express, or express inadequately. But when you continue using the old words it is expected, and proper to abide by its definition. So you must find other means to express words that no longer fit into an old word. You don't CHANGE the meaning of the old word. In addition to that, if a word is continually used to describe something it isn't anymore, like "government" it's simply wrong to redifine the word government. It's proper to stop USING the word government for that application, and find a new way to express what that thing that you are expressing more accurately should be described as. You may have to use more words to come up with that description. There may not be ONE adequate word for it. You may propose a new term and try to get that term to catch on, and maybe it will end up popular and become widely enough used to end up in future dictionaries. But making up definitions for previously accepted meanings of words already defined is not useful. If you use a word that can be found in dictionaries it is proper to use the word correctly. That is my argument here. If I'm wrong please "kindly" point out why and we can go from there, but let's not pretend we don't understand each other. And when you see a word you don't understand, or haven't learned yet. Just, look, it, up...

I cant understand you. Please define all words in those sentences. You are using all of these "words" in your reply, but you say they have no meaning until defined by the one speaking them, so either you are writing for no particular purpose or you do understand that we both agree to use words and there defined meanings, (which can be found in the dictionary) This is a huge contridiction. I've heard Stef talk about this sort of thing ad nauseum. Words have meanings. We agree to go by their meanings. Those meanings are shared through the invention of dictionaries. If a word no longer reflects reality, then you don't use it anymore. You use an assemblage of other words that will get you to your point. Stef also does this, very often, but he also doesn't stop to define words over and over and over, because he must believe that we all can agree that if we use a word, we are not making up our own meaning, but we are using the definition that is agreed upon, and reflected in the newest versions of dictionaries.

Well, the whole of a debate is decided in the set of definitions and assumptions used. Perhaps they're just a hyper-strategic debaters. Alternatively, there could be a goal conflict. Some people debate to be right, rather than to discover what is true. agreed

I think having a dictionary close at hand is a good way to prevent you from constantly having to ask somebody to define words. I think it's also very cool when people use the words they say, the way they are defined in dictionaries. There have been times when I don't know what a particular word means so I look it up instead of asking what the person meant. It helps keep things flowing. It's not my job to make sure others use proper definitions, so I just use the dictionary. If a person can't use words by their proper meanings then it's their fault. Why waste time asking a person if they are sure they used the word right? Just rebutt them on what the word actually is said to mean by the definitions in dictionaries. If they have an issue, it will surface soon enough.

What do you mean?