Forgiveness


KacyRay

Recommended Posts

What if you're tired or frail? Give me a break.

Evil people won't. It's your own personal responsibility to be fit and aware of the world around you. Also, don't indulge angry thoughts in your head. Ill will attracts evil people to you like a magnet attracts iron filings because they sense that you are their own kind.

I will make sure to tell my 89 year-old father in law this advice. Although he uses a walker, I think parts of the walker can be untwisted and used as a weapon so that--in a pinch--he can take on 3-4 marauders at a time.

Otherwise the Old Fart should just keep a clear head and not let "angry thoughts" intrude. Got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brant, I'm all about personal responsibility. But I don't think this is an issue of taking something to the extreme.

In this statement: "there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault", there is so much *bad* packaged in that I'm not sure I'd want to even hang around this guy long enough to pick out the *good*.

I wonder if Greg feels that the sin of mankind was provoked by his god.

But I'll take your advice Brant... reason is not even on the table here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kacy,

Greg has explained that he doesn't use banks and anyone who does use them... well, you can probably figure out the rest based on his responses.

I liked your 9/11 example better because it's purer and gets straight to the heart of the issue - no additional examples necessary. The gaping hole in his framework is its requirement of perfect knowledge.

You are correct in your conclusion - Greg believes every victim on 9/11 deserved what they got. What type of a person believes that? Well, you can draw your conclusions there as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, do you have any idea how disrespectful it is to the victims of unprovoked attacks to suggest that they are somehow morally responsible for what happened to them?

Kacy,

Here is where I have trouble. The people who point fingers at others for expressing their opinions and beliefs, call them dangerous, shame on them, they are immoral, etc. etc. etc., especially when they say they won't participate in the victimization game under any circumstances, generally support government controls on what people are allowed to do, say, etc., (including entitlements), as this supposedly comes from an enlightened morality.

But government controls and entitlements create a huge amount of victims that such people generally blank out. In fact, they generally think such victims are morally responsible for what happens to them--money that is confiscated from the rich, nay, not even the rich, just the well-off, the intelligent one who shined too much in school who got his wings clipped, etc. And those are the victims Rand liked to defend. But what about the poor people in ghettos who have grown so soft by being on the dole they can't make a living on their own? What about their kids who become gang members because the only people they can look up to are on the dole? And the victims of those gang members?

These are all victims.

I never hear concern about those victims from finger-pointers. So the concern with respect for victims rings hollow to me. A victim is a victim. It's OK to cherry pick victims and try to defend the ones the person favors, but this does not make the person a hero of humanity and defender of all victims--especially when such person promotes policies that create more victims.

I disagree with Greg. I've told him and, guess what? He disagrees with me. But we have one thing where we agree on unconditionally. I will not force him to say or do something he does not believe in, nor will he do likewise to me. I know I shouldn't speak for another, but I've seen enough to be quite comfortable saying that. (And if I'm wrong, I ask Greg to please correct me.)

But in my disagreement with him, I don't consider the argument for government controls in any way superior to what he argues. I would be more in line with your approach if you did not have this underlying government position to fall back on.

But since you do, I would characterize his position as live and let live while expressing his opinion (irrespective of how right or wrong it is), whereas the government people's position is live and behave my way or suffer the consequences I--or those I support--will bring down on your head. (They rarely say it that way, but they will go there when push comes to shove and a person refuses to comply, especially in a public manner.)

So the moral superiority you imply you promote is not as clear to me as it is to you. The opposite isn't clear either, but it is less muddy since implied (but real) coercion is off the table.

I am observing the effect on others of Greg's refusal to play the victimization game (even if he steps outside of common sense in my opinion). I wonder if the disproportionate hostility I observe is not so much due to the moral superiority of his critic, but more due to the fact that he thereby removes the only weapon of inducing guilt most people know how to operate with any degree of competence. I mean, how are you going to control others and hide it if you can't induce guilt in them?

:smile:

Sorry to sound accusatory, but my intent isn't to attack. I'm legitimately interested in what's unrolling around Greg and I don't think it's as simple as you claim.

(btw - I am just as critical of my own subconscious and I tend to study my own reactions in a manner very similar to what I am laying out here. I actually do this to myself. :smile: )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the moral superiority you imply you promote is not as clear to me as it is to you. The opposite isn't clear either, but it is less muddy since implied (but real) coercion is off the table.

I am observing the effect on others of Greg's refusal to play the victimization game (even if he steps outside of common sense in my opinion). I wonder if the disproportionate hostility I observe is not so much due to the moral superiority of his critic, but more due to the fact that he thereby removes the only weapon of inducing guilt most people know how to operate with any degree of competence. I mean, how are you going to control others and hide it if you can't induce guilt in them?

Sorry to sound accusatory, but my intent isn't to attack. I'm legitimately interested in what's unrolling around Greg and I don't think it's as simple as you claim.

Michael - I'm not fully convinced of your impression that Greg is content to live and let live. He posts here for a reason (having repeated this pattern on many other forums), and we know it's not to check his own premises, in light of his acknowledgement that he holds a fundamentalist philosophy that cannot be logically challenged or disproved. Your assumption that the forum attacks him because it seeks control raises the question of why Rand felt so threatened by religion or those who claim A=B, even when they otherwise go about their business. I think her response might be that there are dangerous implications in the ideas themselves that strike at the foundation of a functioning moral society. In other words, Greg hasn't overtly aggressed against anyone here, but we sense a greater disturbance in Greg's "force" all the same. Train this boy, the Jedi Council shall not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes victims are innocent. They were just unfortunate to be in a certain place at a certain time. In fact, victims are blameless for what befell them far more often than not.

If I had a relative that had been lost on one of the 9/11 flights and someone implied or said that somehow it was his fault for being on that plane that day and he should have know better I would have to fight down the urge to bust that accuser in the snout.

I think sanctimonious pricks piss me off far more than any other single thing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assumption that the forum attacks him...

... we sense a greater disturbance in Greg's "force" all the same.

... Jedi Council shall not.

This is the kind of collectivist tribal thinking I do not abide by.

I dislike it. I think as an individual. Most regulars, in my perception, do too.

If there is one place on the Internet where peer pressure to conform does not reign supreme, I like to think OL is that place.

From what I have observed, some people have disliked Greg, most have been perplexed and disagreed with some of what he says and agreed with other stuff.

The collective "we" on OL is little more than wee-wee in the bushes.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes victims are innocent. They were just unfortunate to be in a certain place at a certain time. In fact, victims are blameless for what befell them far more often than not.

If I had a relative that had been lost on one of the 9/11 flights and someone implied or said that somehow it was his fault for being on that plane that day and he should have know better I would have to fight down the urge to bust that accuser in the snout.

I think sanctimonious pricks piss me off far more than any other single thing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Here, here!!

Bravo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... this is truly amazing. There's no need to speak for myself when there are already so many people falling all over themselves to speak for me. This is like having a cadre of public relations personnel! :laugh:

I'm busy right now but I'll be able respond fully later on when there is more free time, so all of you please continue telling each other what I said so that you can keep yourselves busy arguing about it. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, you said there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault. Are you going to act like that doesn't mean what it means?

If you believe there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault, then you believe that all assaults are, to some degree, provoked.

And if you believe that all assaults are, to some degree, provoked... then you believe that all people who are assaulted are, to some degree, to blame for the fact that they were assaulted.

Ideas don't exist in a vacuum. Words mean things. You spoke the words. I'm simply articulating what those words mean.

And no one is, I think, arguing what those words mean. MSK is simply trying to make a case against my assertion that someone who believes what you claim to be is dangerous.

I don't think you're a ticking time bomb necessarily... but it will be tough to convince me that someone who blames all victims for their own victimization hasn't, to some degree, justified assault in their mind. And if you believe there's no such thing as an unprovoked assault, then that means that you believe you can assault anyone you want with moral impunity, since all assaults are provoked.

And once you go there... well, anything goes, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... this is truly amazing. There's no need to speak for myself when there are already so many people falling all over themselves to speak for me. This is like having a cadre of public relations personnel! :laugh:

I'm busy right now but I'll be able respond fully later on when there is more free time, so all of you please continue telling each other what I said so that you can keep yourselves busy arguing about it. :wink:

Greg

Um, I don't think that people are falling over themselves to "speak for you," but to clarify what you seem to mean when talking the nonsense that you talk. They only appear to be "speaking for you" because when your nonsense is questioned or challenged, you don't grasp what you're being asked, and therefore you do not "speak for yourself" in any meaningful sense of the term. You do anything but "respond fully." You just repeat more nonsense and make no attempt to grasp the challenges that have already been issued against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, do you have any idea how disrespectful it is to the victims of unprovoked attacks to suggest that they are somehow morally responsible for what happened to them?

Kacy,

Here is where I have trouble. The people who point fingers at others for expressing their opinions and beliefs, call them dangerous, shame on them, they are immoral, etc. etc. etc., especially when they say they won't participate in the victimization game under any circumstances, generally support government controls on what people are allowed to do, say, etc., (including entitlements), as this supposedly comes from an enlightened morality.

But government controls and entitlements create a huge amount of victims that such people generally blank out. In fact, they generally think such victims are morally responsible for what happens to them--money that is confiscated from the rich, nay, not even the rich, just the well-off, the intelligent one who shined too much in school who got his wings clipped, etc. And those are the victims Rand liked to defend. But what about the poor people in ghettos who have grown so soft by being on the dole they can't make a living on their own? What about their kids who become gang members because the only people they can look up to are on the dole? And the victims of those gang members?

These are all victims.

I never hear concern about those victims from finger-pointers. So the concern with respect for victims rings hollow to me. A victim is a victim. It's OK to cherry pick victims and try to defend the ones the person favors, but this does not make the person a hero of humanity and defender of all victims--especially when such person promotes policies that create more victims.

I disagree with Greg. I've told him and, guess what? He disagrees with me. But we have one thing where we agree on unconditionally. I will not force him to say or do something he does not believe in, nor will he do likewise to me. I know I shouldn't speak for another, but I've seen enough to be quite comfortable saying that. (And if I'm wrong, I ask Greg to please correct me.)

But in my disagreement with him, I don't consider the argument for government controls in any way superior to what he argues. I would be more in line with your approach if you did not have this underlying government position to fall back on.

But since you do, I would characterize his position as live and let live while expressing his opinion (irrespective of how right or wrong it is), whereas the government people's position is live and behave my way or suffer the consequences I--or those I support--will bring down on your head. (They rarely say it that way, but they will go there when push comes to shove and a person refuses to comply, especially in a public manner.)

So the moral superiority you imply you promote is not as clear to me as it is to you. The opposite isn't clear either, but it is less muddy since implied (but real) coercion is off the table.

I am observing the effect on others of Greg's refusal to play the victimization game (even if he steps outside of common sense in my opinion). I wonder if the disproportionate hostility I observe is not so much due to the moral superiority of his critic, but more due to the fact that he thereby removes the only weapon of inducing guilt most people know how to operate with any degree of competence. I mean, how are you going to control others and hide it if you can't induce guilt in them?

:smile:

Sorry to sound accusatory, but my intent isn't to attack. I'm legitimately interested in what's unrolling around Greg and I don't think it's as simple as you claim.

(btw - I am just as critical of my own subconscious and I tend to study my own reactions in a manner very similar to what I am laying out here. I actually do this to myself. :smile: )

Michael

Yeah, that would be a great argument if I was a person who supports government controls on what people do, say, etc...

Are you under the impression I'm such a person? Why? Because I think fraud should be illegal?

What gives you the idea that I think the government should control what we do and say? What have I ever said to put you under that impression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kacy,

Agree or disagree with Greg, I seriously doubt you will ever get guilt hooks or intimidation hooks into him.

He just doesn't play the game.

I find it interesting that you find this so threatening.

Jeez... I just thought of something.

What if other people started to like the idea of not playing the guilt-control game?

Not because they agree with Greg, but because they like his example?

Good Lord, that could be dangerous!

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Greg, Kacy takes it one step to far by deducing a justification of assaults on other people from Greg's morality. Greg is clear in his message that those who assault others are evil - he just also believes the recipients had it coming. I do want people to be accurately represented.

Michael, poke fun all you want, but there is something fundamentally unhinged about believing the 9/11 victims deserved to die for their vulnerability or evil thoughts. It's not Greg's specific ideas that are the danger per se, it's his mode of thinking. To take one example, I wouldn't allow Greg to babysit my children, and if you would be comfortable doing so, I'm wondering why your emotional-intelligence sirens aren't going off, as ours all are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair to Greg, Kacy takes it one step to far by deducing a justification of assaults on other people from Greg's morality. Greg is clear in his message that those who assault others are evil - he just also believes the recipients had it coming. I do want people to be accurately represented.

Michael, poke fun all you want, but there is something fundamentally unhinged about believing the 9/11 victims deserved to die for their vulnerability or evil thoughts. It's not Greg's specific ideas that are the danger per se, it's his mode of thinking.

Up to here, OK. This is all an opinion. It slightly misrepresents what I have read Greg say, but I can see how the misunderstanding could occur.

I don't know who the danger is to, though, but that's still a personal opinion.

Maybe this poster thinks Greg is a danger is to himself (the poster)? Or Greg is a danger to those this poster wants to control? Questions, questions, questions... But those are my questions. Basically, my opinion.

I think this poster doesn't trust readers to think for themselves.

To take one example, I wouldn't allow Greg to babysit my children, and if you would be comfortable doing so, I'm wondering why your emotional-intelligence sirens aren't going off, as ours all are.

Here comes the collectivism again. I don't know what "ours all" means. Not on OL. Not talking about babysitting kids or sounding "emotional-intelligence sirens."

I really can't stand this "we" stuff used to try to drum up peer pressure.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that affects you pretty greatly. My condolences... I suspect it's like losing a family member.

To me, she was real in the sense that the guys in Rush are real, Ayn Rand was real, Michael Jordan is real... To you, she was a friend. I can understand that you would be out of sorts today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only remember a few times in my life when I experienced actual depression over the death of a celebrity.

The first time was when John Belushi died. I was very young, but The Blues Brothers was not just my favorite movie, it was the only movie. I couldn't believe there would never be another Blues Brothers movie. (Now I just wish I had been right about that.)

I remember it again when Jeff Buckley died in 1997. He had only put out one album and it is still one of the best of all time. Gone way too young.

I remember it when Robert B. Parker died a few years back. I have been a fan of the Spenser series for my entire adult life. When he died, it felt like Spenser died. But he was old, and it wasn't unexpected.

I felt it a *little* when James Gandolfini died, but not quite as much.

Barbara was more than a celebrity to a lot of us though. She was an influence and she was living history. I can't say her death impacts me the way it does you, but I can respect what she did, what she went through, and how she came out the other side. I wish I'd have been able to meet her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up to here, OK. This is all an opinion. It slightly misrepresents what I have read Greg say, but I can see how the misunderstanding could occur.

I don't know who the danger is to, though, but that's still a personal opinion.

Maybe this poster thinks Greg is a danger is to himself (the poster)? Or Greg is a danger to those this poster wants to control? Questions, questions, questions... But those are my questions. Basically, my opinion.

I think this poster doesn't trust readers to think for themselves.

Michael,

I'm not looking to control Greg. In fact, I'm convinced Greg is in a mental place where he can no longer be influenced by anything we say to him. You seem to be viewing this as a strength of character - being immune to any "control" behavior - but I view Greg's unplugging of himself from external logic sources as a serious long-term liability. The way I put it to SB privately is Greg has shut off the learning parts of his brain so his ideas are no longer being checked or reigned in by any objective reality. The callous lack of empathy he displays toward victims of attacks, combined with his puzzling inability to recognize the randomness and vicissitudes in all of our lives, should be setting off tripwires and lighting up the intuitive defenses in our monkey brains like a Christmas tree. Something is not *right* here, and I think that's what is causing the harsh responses in this forum, not any kind of resentment. It's like a case of someone hearing voices from God; the fact that the voices haven't suggested harming anyone is little consolation when confronted with a decision of whether to trust such a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now