Do We Learn To Love Bad Art?

[Ellen Stuttle]

PS: Who are the third and fifth women from the left in the photo strip?

Bonnie Parker and Rosalind Franklin.

I don't know who Bonnie Parker is, but the other photo rang a dim bell the name attached to which didn't come to mind.

Ellen

[dldelancey]

PS: Who are the third and fifth women from the left in the photo strip?

Bonnie Parker and Rosalind Franklin.

I don't know who Bonnie Parker is, but the other photo rang a dim bell the name attached to which didn't come to mind.

Ellen

Bonnie Parker - as in Bonnie & Clyde.

[dldelancey]

Moralist's dualist yinyang worldview sees the US hopelessly divided not only between red and blue but between men and women.

That is not true.

Whenever people try to describe my view from their point of view, it's easy to get it wrong because it is their subconscious aim to describe my view in such a twisted way so as to disqualify it. So the job falls to me to correct these mischaracterizations. But this isn't a complaint as it allows me repeated opportunities to further refine and clarify the description of my view.

The division is NOT between men and women. The division is between men and women... and males and females.

Viktor Frankl said it even better: "THERE ARE ONLY TWO RACES... THE DECENT AND THE INDECENT."

My description is that the US is divided between the Producers and the Parasites.

Or even more clearly, just as Ayn Rand had accurately predicted over a half century ago. The US is divided between the American Capitalist producers, and the European Liberal Socialist moochers and their allies the Liberal government public union looters who service the childish demands of the moochers.

He assigns universal human characteristics , which are uniquely mixed in each individual, to the Good Masculine which he admires, and the Bad Feminine which he doesn't.

You're right, each individual is a unique mixture of traits... but everyone's challenge in life is exactly the same. And that challenge is NOT to indiscriminately act on our every thought and emotion... but to temper our actions by holding true to what is morally right.

Greg

If both Victor Frankl and Ayn Rand have already described and labeled these two polarized groups in ways that you agree with, then why do you think it necessary to label them further? And upon deciding to label them further, why did you choose labels that require you to massage the definitions of the words male and female so vigorously? Decent and indecent are fitting and their meanings in this context are easily understandable. As are producers and parasites. Why not stick with what already works?

[moralist]

Moralist's dualist yinyang worldview sees the US hopelessly divided not only between red and blue but between men and women.

That is not true.

Whenever people try to describe my view from their point of view, it's easy to get it wrong because it is their subconscious aim to describe my view in such a twisted way so as to disqualify it. So the job falls to me to correct these mischaracterizations. But this isn't a complaint as it allows me repeated opportunities to further refine and clarify the description of my view.

The division is NOT between men and women. The division is between men and women... and males and females.

Viktor Frankl said it even better: "THERE ARE ONLY TWO RACES... THE DECENT AND THE INDECENT."

My description is that the US is divided between the Producers and the Parasites.

Or even more clearly, just as Ayn Rand had accurately predicted over a half century ago. The US is divided between the American Capitalist producers, and the European Liberal Socialist moochers and their allies the Liberal government public union looters who service the childish demands of the moochers.

He assigns universal human characteristics , which are uniquely mixed in each individual, to the Good Masculine which he admires, and the Bad Feminine which he doesn't.

You're right, each individual is a unique mixture of traits... but everyone's challenge in life is exactly the same. And that challenge is NOT to indiscriminately act on our every thought and emotion... but to temper our actions by holding true to what is morally right.

Greg

If both Victor Frankl and Ayn Rand have already described and labeled these two polarized groups in ways that you agree with, then why do you think it necessary to label them further? And upon deciding to label them further, why did you choose labels that require you to massage the definitions of the words male and female so vigorously? Decent and indecent are fitting and their meanings in this context are easily understandable. As are producers and parasites. Why not stick with what already works?

That's just my own subjective observation which further personalizes moral distinction.

The animal world is denoted solely by male and female gender, but only humans are exclusively denoted as men and women. While many people popularly claim the animal world as the role model for their own behavior to which they aspire... there others who recognize the component of moral accountability uniquely reserved for men and women. And it is this accountability to moral law which distinguishes men and women from males and females.

I fully realize that this runs the risk of offending people, but that's good because it raises a rhetorical question worthy of asking ourselves:

Why?

Greg

[caroljane]

I don't know what animals call each other, but in fact humans do not describe most animals simply as male and female. They call them ram and ewe, cow and bull, dog and .... and I ask myself, Why?

[moralist]

...in fact humans do not describe most animals simply as male and female.

(shrug...) Then you already have the answer that already fits the view you have already chosen.

[Jonathan]

Regardless of your many complaints...

Greg, in a philosophical discussion, when people blow holes in your theory and identify your philosophical capriciousness, inconsistency and irrationality, it comes across as a dishonest attempt at spin for you to label their criticisms as mere "complaints," especially when you're not addressing the substance of their criticisms.

I don't see Greg as in the least dishonest, instead as talking from a thoroughly different framework from yours.

Ellen

I understand that that's a possibility. Greg may not be dishonest.

And I wouldn't really call his mindset a framework so much as a bubble. I think that your earlier comment is quite apt: la la land. Greg is inside the la la land bubble, and everyone else is outside of it. What's interesting though is that some things -- very few -- appear to get through undistorted, or at least not completely distorted.

J

[moralist]

Regardless of your many complaints...

Greg, in a philosophical discussion, when people blow holes in your theory and identify your philosophical capriciousness, inconsistency and irrationality, it comes across as a dishonest attempt at spin for you to label their criticisms as mere "complaints," especially when you're not addressing the substance of their criticisms.

I don't see Greg as in the least dishonest, instead as talking from a thoroughly different framework from yours.

Ellen

I understand that that's a possibility. Greg may not be dishonest.

And I wouldn't really call his mindset a framework so much as a bubble. I think that you're earlier comment is quite apt: la la land. Greg is inside the la la land bubble, and everyone else is outside of it. What's interesting though is that some things -- very few -- appear to get through undistorted, or at least not completely distorted.

J

The view I chose will always appear that way to you because of the view you chose. But the only constant is the reality that neither of us escapes from the consequences of our own actions.

For some it's a blessing...

...while for others it's a curse.

[caroljane]

We heard you the first time, you know. "As ye sow so shall ye reap" is a nice smug metaphor. Sure, if ye sow wheat ye cannot expect to reap roses or dollar bills. But a freak frost or plague of locusts can ensure that ye reap nothing. It's good that you are comfy in your bubble and all but please change the channel once in a while.

[Jonathan]

Regardless of your many complaints...

Greg, in a philosophical discussion, when people blow holes in your theory and identify your philosophical capriciousness, inconsistency and irrationality, it comes across as a dishonest attempt at spin for you to label their criticisms as mere "complaints," especially when you're not addressing the substance of their criticisms.

It's perfectly natural for each of the two views to see the other as being wrong, so it's no surprise that in your own mind you feel that you have disqualified the view which you did not choose. That's HOW you made your initial choice of a view in the first place... by disqualifying the view you did not choose in your own mind.

Heh. Which view do you suppose that I hold? Earlier you called a comment of mine "liberal" even though it had nothing to do with liberalism. So, which of your 2-worldview mindsets do you think that I belong to?

Only the reality of the consequences of our actions has the power to render the final verdict on each of our lives.

Well, reality hasn't dished out any bad consequences to a lot of people on both sides of your 2-worldview divide, both throughout history and currently, so apparently that must mean that the final verdict is that both worldviews are okay. Reality also hasn't rewarded a lot of people on both sides with any benefits.

Reality is rendering the verdict on your life right now simply by you getting exactly what you deserve as the consequences of your own actions.

I'm having a great life. So thanks for the nice verdict and consequences, reality!

But it's not personal, for everyone is subject to exactly the SAME inexorable moral justice. Reality also renders the verdict on my life just as it does on yours, and everyone else's for that matter.

Do you know what your mental process reminds me of? Sir Bedever in the "She's a Witch" scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

"So, if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore...A WITCH!"

Very wise in the ways of science.

J

[Jonathan]

Regardless of your many complaints...

Greg, in a philosophical discussion, when people blow holes in your theory and identify your philosophical capriciousness, inconsistency and irrationality, it comes across as a dishonest attempt at spin for you to label their criticisms as mere "complaints," especially when you're not addressing the substance of their criticisms.

I don't see Greg as in the least dishonest, instead as talking from a thoroughly different framework from yours.

Ellen

I understand that that's a possibility. Greg may not be dishonest.

And I wouldn't really call his mindset a framework so much as a bubble. I think that you're earlier comment is quite apt: la la land. Greg is inside the la la land bubble, and everyone else is outside of it. What's interesting though is that some things -- very few -- appear to get through undistorted, or at least not completely distorted.

J

The view I chose will always appear that way to you because of the view you chose. But the only constant is the reality that neither of us escapes from the consequences of our own actions.

For some it's a blessing...

...while for others it's a curse.

Which view did you choose? I'm a capitalist, logical, productivity and merit type of man. You seem to be saying that you're the opposite of me, and therefore that you're a socialistic, illogical, entitlement, blame-others, Obama/Reid type. Is that what you're saying? I can't tell for sure. You've definitely got the illogic and blame-others parts down, but you also seem to think that you're opposing socialism.

J

[PDS]

We heard you the first time, you know. "As ye sow so shall ye reap" is a nice smug metaphor. Sure, if ye sow wheat ye cannot expect to reap roses or dollar bills. But a freak frost or plague of locusts can ensure that ye reap nothing. It's good that you are comfy in your bubble and all but please change the channel once in a while.

Greg has lost his remote, I am afraid.

[caroljane]

Hey, I don't weigh anymore than a duck, not a cooked stuffed one anyway, I am on a diet. am only made of wood so I can transform into a hockey stick.

\

Carol

Misunderstood Crone

Not a Witch

[moralist]

We heard you the first time, you know. "As ye sow so shall ye reap" is a nice smug metaphor.

It's just the way things are. Reality is completely unaffected by whether or not you're bothered by being reminded of it. And complaining to me about my description of it won't work either, because I'm not responsible for the way things are. I'm only happy with the way things are.

So if reality is a curse to you, the only person responsible for that is you.

Sure, if ye sow wheat ye cannot expect to reap roses or dollar bills.

That is not true.

You most certainly can harvest dollar bills by sowing wheat, as it is a valuable commodity which blesses billions of people with food to eat.

[moralist]

Which view did you choose?

The decent one.

[dldelancey]

Moralist's dualist yinyang worldview sees the US hopelessly divided not only between red and blue but between men and women.

That is not true.

Whenever people try to describe my view from their point of view, it's easy to get it wrong because it is their subconscious aim to describe my view in such a twisted way so as to disqualify it. So the job falls to me to correct these mischaracterizations. But this isn't a complaint as it allows me repeated opportunities to further refine and clarify the description of my view.

The division is NOT between men and women. The division is between men and women... and males and females.

Viktor Frankl said it even better: "THERE ARE ONLY TWO RACES... THE DECENT AND THE INDECENT."

My description is that the US is divided between the Producers and the Parasites.

Or even more clearly, just as Ayn Rand had accurately predicted over a half century ago. The US is divided between the American Capitalist producers, and the European Liberal Socialist moochers and their allies the Liberal government public union looters who service the childish demands of the moochers.

He assigns universal human characteristics , which are uniquely mixed in each individual, to the Good Masculine which he admires, and the Bad Feminine which he doesn't.

You're right, each individual is a unique mixture of traits... but everyone's challenge in life is exactly the same. And that challenge is NOT to indiscriminately act on our every thought and emotion... but to temper our actions by holding true to what is morally right.

Greg

If both Victor Frankl and Ayn Rand have already described and labeled these two polarized groups in ways that you agree with, then why do you think it necessary to label them further? And upon deciding to label them further, why did you choose labels that require you to massage the definitions of the words male and female so vigorously? Decent and indecent are fitting and their meanings in this context are easily understandable. As are producers and parasites. Why not stick with what already works?That's just my own subjective observation which further personalizes moral distinction.

The animal world is denoted solely by male and female gender, but only humans are exclusively denoted as men and women. While many people popularly claim the animal world as the role model for their own behavior to which they aspire... there others who recognize the component of moral accountability uniquely reserved for men and women. And it is this accountability to moral law which distinguishes men and women from males and females.

I fully realize that this runs the risk of offending people, but that's good because it raises a rhetorical question worthy of asking ourselves:

Why?

Greg

I still wonder why Frankl's and Rand's labels are not sufficient. If your intent is to offend and/or to raise worthy questions about the root cause of such offense, then Frankl and Rand meet those purposes way better than you do. I'm not offended to be called a female. I would be quite offended, however, to be called indecent or parasitic.

I think where you run into trouble around here, Greg, is that you imply your personalized moral distinctions are universal and superior.

[caroljane]

I do not complain about reality. I complain about tautological boring repetition in lieu of real conversation.

[caroljane]

Deanna, like you I do not feel offended by Doug's. I mean Greg's, odd and arbitrary categorizations of half the human race. I f you have read my previous posts on this thread, you will see I recognize them as the conventional masculist take on Randianism espoused by the men's -rights movement, where men represent themselves as victims of the new "Monstrous Regiment of Women."

It is a fairly harmless indulgence and I feel that in real life he is a good husband and father and mostly does what he is told.

[moralist]

I still wonder why Frankl's and Rand's labels are not sufficient.

It's just the honest description of my view in my own words. There is never any expectation that you or anyone else here would ever give what I say any credence if it does not agree with the view that you already chose.

Greg

[moralist]

I mean Greg's, odd and arbitrary categorizations of half the human race.

Again, just for further clarity, the moral division is NOT between men and women, but is between these two distinctly different groups:

1. men and women

2. females and males

It is morality which makes men and women out of females and males.

[caroljane]

No it is not, because you also assign the indecent and parasitic human characteristics all to the females, leaving your "women" as masculine females.

[moralist]

No it is not, because you also assign the indecent and parasitic human characteristics all to the females,

That also is not true.

But I can appreciate your attempts at misdirection as they allow me to further refine the description of my view.

Males are just as capable of being indecently parasitic as females, as it took ~both~ to make the government they deserve what it is today... a bloated bankrupt bureaucracy created in their image.

It took males who share the same values as females to form the dysfunctionally fractured relationships that depend on the government to be husband and father because the males failed to become men.

leaving your "women" as masculine females.

Decent married women who are also mothers are hardly masculine for they embody the fulfillment of womanhood... whereas the females represent the failure to become women.

I can understand your trying to make this into a gender issue because race, gender, and class are the primary points of focus of your view.

But the reality is that it's actually a moral issue which draws the line between female and woman, and between male and man.

It's everyone's challenge in life to strive to evolve from the former into the latter.

[caroljane]

Race, gender and class are definitely not the primary foci of my view, of which you have no knowledge but your own subjective stereotype.

Class in all its manifestations is an interest of mine however. So far you have not displayed a lot of it.

[moralist]

Race, gender and class are definitely not the primary foci of my view, of which you have no knowledge but your own subjective stereotype.

Class in all its manifestations is an interest of mine however. So far you have not displayed a lot of it.

Although you are claiming that gender is not your focus, your behavior says otherwise when you keep trying to misdirect this into an issue of gender, when it is clearly a moral issue. This difference in focus accounts for our two divergent views on this matter. Whenever the moral distinction between females and women or males and men is invoked, it's bound to generate some personal offense. So your reaction is completely normal and is to be expected.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Race, gender and class are definitely not the primary foci of my view, of which you have no knowledge but your own subjective stereotype.

Class in all its manifestations is an interest of mine however. So far you have not displayed a lot of it.

Although you are claiming that gender is not your focus, your behavior says otherwise when you keep trying to misdirect this into an issue of gender, when it is clearly a moral issue. This difference in focus accounts for our two divergent views on this matter. Whenever the moral distinction between females and women or males and men is invoked, it's bound to generate some personal offense. So your reaction is completely normal and is to be expected.

Greg

(I am Brant's evil twin): Carol, you are misusing "class," maybe, by encompassing two different definitions of the word, maybe--a fallacy, maybe. And Greg is reducing all his arguments to ad hominems. Greg is reversing the usual argument to the man by making arguments from the man. Not that he would care, I think, except to care to keep doing it.

--Kant

(sob)