jpahmad

Use the Bartleby approach and just say "I prefer not to." That way you are not stating how things ought to be, but just stating what you are not going to do. This will be met with the least amount of resistance and most amount of understanding. "I prefer not to use violence" "I prefer not to vote" etc.. Lead by example

I didn't get the memo on the sixth sense

Yes, you ever watch that show Walking Dead?

I would say that you can't aggress against something that doesn't exist. One a child is conceived, however, it is possible to aggress against it, e.g., drinking, smoking, being under stress from an abusive relationship while pregnant, living in a depraved war-torn environment, etc... Once a child is conceived, if your current disposition is abusive, if your current environment is poison, then you by default become an aggressor against the unborn child. Let's say I conceived a child on the ledge of an active volcano. The act of sex was not aggresive, but untill I change my immediate environment, I am aggressing against the child/fetus.

I agree with you. If there is no aggressive behavior involved, than racism is irrelevant. I don't even use the word to describe people anymore. Usually you find that "racist" people are usually assholes all around. If the KKK wasn't directing their abusive violent behavior towards minorities, they would certainly be directing it towards each other. They probalby already do. These people are hateful sociopaths. That's their problem.

How bout not labeling yourself as an anarchist, or atheist, or, libertarian, or anything. Describe yourself to others as just being a human being who thinks rationally. I think labels, although convenient and efficient, will just immediately invite animosity. For example, if someone asks me whether I go to church or not (this happens a lot in Texas), I find it most effective to say that "church is uninteresting to me." In this way, the conversation ends and they know where I stand. If someone follows up and asks if I believe in god, I just state that the whole idea of god is boring and I'd rather spend my time thinking about something else. These reactions immediatley humanize my position and invites empathy from the person with whom I am speaking. Maybe this would work when discussing ethics as well.

I've thought about this a lot. I think that once you get the sense that someone isn't reasonable you should flip a switch and go into a completely different mode. The mode is something along the lines of complete manipulation. Treat them how they treat you. They don't deserve to be reasoned with. They are malicious. If you know this, and see them for what they are, you can beat them. This is just a theory though. I haven't tried it yet.

Oh, someone beat me to it. Well, I got the Bill Burr follow up though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwPg2oarG_c

Great post again Antony. Stef thinks we should treat children as equals. I agree; they are equals. If this is true, then in a free society, we should treat adults like we treat children! What is successfully applied to one human, can be applied to another. Especially if we are all equal. That's my new motto! Treat everyone like a child. I think it would be better if you included the term validation in your analysis. I think this word goes right for the jugular. Someone else posted about validation on this forum; I can't remember who.

Thanks cynicist. I won't let you down.

I'm going to post the video it in the gold donators forum under listener projects. I think that would be less intimidating for me then out here in the general public. Then, if all goes according to plan, I'll post it out here as well. Give me until tomorrow evening to post it. It will be my first webcam video and I need to shave first.

Thanks for this link. You would not believe how much of this goes on in the school system. It is the first step in empathizing with someone and no one ever, ever takes it. I personally have confirmation that taking that step works every time. Half the time, that's all you have to do! The first step! It's so easy. Why the hell don't they have this in "teacher training?"

Hey labmath2 I'm feeling lazy, could you give me the link that concerns this aspect of Kant's philosophy?

Dsayers!! Awesome. I need your expert critique to help me out on this one. How bout you call it and I'll do it. I'll type it out, youtube it, or skype with you. Or, maybe a combo. You choose.

So then I could will that everyone try to kill each other, and then try to kill someone myself, and be morally right according to Kant's theory of ethics?

Hey Antony, I would hope there were more people on this forum that would want to hear the story but I guess it's just you and me bro. I can type it up and post it here, or, I can make a video and post it. With the video, I could use body language and physical demonstrations to explain better. I did use your method in fact, and I added a few tricks of my own. Let me know what you would prefer. J.P.

Hey Xelent, I've got a story for you. Just happened yesterday in fact. I changed someone who previously was clueless, irrational, and has been arguing with me for the past year about how to treat kids. It is a large victory for people like us, and for the kids in her classroom! Would you like to hear what happened on Friday?

Here's the link: http://www.fivemoreminuteswith.com/2011/03/the-real-meaning-of-kin/ I just copied the text and pasted it below. I think it does a wonderful job of explaining my position on love. The following is a quote: *** Author Forrest Carter is perhaps best known for his popular novel “The Outlaw Jose Wales,” which was made into the movie “Gone to Texas,” starring Clint Eastwood. But many believe that Carter’s one great novel was “The Education of Little Tree,” his autobiographical remembrance of his orphaned boyhood with his Eastern Cherokee Hill country grandparents during the 1930s depression. Little Tree recalled that when, late at night, he heard his grandpa tell his grandma, “I kin ye, Bonnie Bee,” he knew that he was saying, “I love ye” – because of the feeling in the words. “And when they would be talking,” Little Tree recollected, “and Grandma would say ‘Do ye kin me, Wales?’ and he would answer, ‘I kin ye,’ it meant, ‘I understand ye.’ To them, love and understanding was the same thing. Granma said you couldn’t love something you didn’t understand….Granpa and Granma had an understanding, and so they had a love….And they called it ‘kin.’” Little Tree’s grandpa told him that “before his time ‘kinfolks’ meant any folks that you understood and had an understanding with, so it meant ‘loved folks.’ But people got selfish, and brought it down to mean just blood relatives; but that actually it was never meant to mean that.” “Kin” is a small but powerful word that brings together two beautiful actions that are inseparable: love and understanding. When we feel understood, we feel loved. And when we feel loved, we trust that we will be understood. To be understood is to be heard, validated, accepted, and valued. One of our greatest needs is love that understands – from other persons and from our Creator. Love that understands requires the courage to express ourselves – to reveal our feelings, thoughts, differences, secrets, faults, and our pride as well as our shame. Our greatest fear is that if I tell you who I am, you may not love me. (The courage to take such a risk is strengthened if there’s already some measure of trust within the relationship.) At the same time, such love requires the will to understand the other – to listen with empathy and patience…without pre-judgment, criticism, or advice. It resists claiming, “I know exactly how you feel.” And when told, “You don’t understand,” determined love responds, “I want to understand. Can you tell me more?” and then waits in silence. Stephen Covey believes that one of the habits of highly effective people is to “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” My temptation is to let my own need to be understood, helpful, or right undercut my “hearing the other person out” in a way that might enable them to feel heard and valued.

So therefore, if you win a competition, that is the result of doing something morally right. Correct?

Thanks for the input. I like how you shortend it up. I think it would be more accurate if I said: "love is our involuntary response to a high level of perceived understanding." I think this is where I may be getting hung up A man wants to kill me and he is holding a gun to my head. I ask him why he wants to kill me and he says "because I will get paid $10" Now, I can understand his motif on one level, but on a different level I don't understand it. Yeah, I think that's where I'm getting hung up. Think about it. If I somehow survived that encounter. And re-told the story of what happened to my friend or whoever, the friend could respond to my horrific story by saying the words: "wow, he was gong to kill you for $10? I don't understand why someone would do that! In fact, I don't understand why anyone would kill anyone for money. It's just so wrong! I don't understand these people!" Now, my friend was clearly demonstrating that he understood the motif, but also did not understand the motif. So which one is it? Does my friend understand the killer's behavior, or not?

Mike you're right. I didn't see the date on the article. Sorry about that.

SamuelS, I'm not quite sure if I'm trying to put forth a definition or a theory when I said this: What would I call this? Also, whether it's a definition or a theory, could you tweak it or replace some of the words, or even add some words so to make it satisfactory as far as you're concerned? Thank you Wesley, this is true and I agree. So I am only going to only use "percieved understanding" in my theory. Whether or not the perception is correct, in terms of conforming to actual objective reality, is not important. Here is a concrete example: If I walk up my driveway after work and see my dog wagging his tail and jumping around and all happy to see me, this gives me a feeling of affection for this creature because it appears that he is happy to see me. If however, I find out somehow, through a scientific study, that the dog really is behaving that way because they are purposefully trying to manipulate me into giving them a bone (having learned this through behavioral reinforcement) than my warm feelings of affection suddenly simmer down to a null, or at least, alot less than what they were before. So as you can see, although I falsely understood the animal, I still felt genuine affection for it. side note: I chose to use the word "affection" instead of "love" because to me, "love" is a word that might be better reserved for a much higher degree of affection; one we can't feel for animals, but one we can feel for humans. I would say this is because our "perceived understanding" of humans, those that we claim we love, is usually much deeper and more encompassing than it is for animals. I think the same example can be converted to human/human affection. We all know the girl who fell hard for the good looking, slick-talking, deceptive douchbag. She really loved him. Then after she found out she was being deceived, because he was sleeping around on her, she fell "out of love" with him. Now, you certainly can't understand someone if you are being deceived. But, you can think you understand them. This perceived understanding, is what illicited the feeling of love. It didn't matter whether it was real understanding or not. So my new definition: Love is a word that we use to describe the feeling generated by the human body when two sapient beings, at least one of them being human, have reached a very high level of perceived understanding.

By the way, the reason why I'm addressing only one of your points out of maybe all 3 or 4 is because I am multi-tasking here and only have time to formulate and write out a response to one thing at a time. Later this evening, I can write more words in one sitting. Thanks for working with me SamuelS. Give me a minute and I'll address what you said more in depth. But you are certainly correct about clear communication. I'm trying my best