I say old chap no call for that. Bad spelling does not indicate bad thinking, nor a lack of it okay.
We all have our own agenders and offten we may not even realise what these are ourselves, we all have our own outlook on life which inveriably colours how we debate, the words we use and when and how offten we may loose our temper. Harsh words are still just words, which we can of course chose to respond to in kind, or ignore or show some self control. I'm glad you decided to get this off your chest though. On 19 Aug, 23:05, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes Kenny, thinking and spelling and punctuation are not for everybody > I suppose. I think it helps in these groups however, as you found > out, and that might apply in life too. Just a thought. > > Having fluctuating ethics seems like a bad idea to me, but you seem > to handle it well. Why would you choose this group? (just out of > curiosity) > > On Aug 19, 2:00 pm, kenny1 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > i have many core philosophies. (one is not to learn to spell much > > since it still gets the point across). i actually got kicked out of a > > google group for refusing to correct my punctuation. absolutly > > redicolouis. some people will totally undermind entire meanings for a > > disregrad to acute details. my philosophies are many and i prioritize > > them quite differently though forgetfullness, which i think happens to > > all of us, and the things i learn over time. i know that charitable > > people are generally happy, but sometimes you may not know where to > > draw the line. who does? who's to say this has gone too far? and what > > if there is the exchange theory involved too, say break a rule for > > that cute girl. my ethical swings affect my philosophies. i know the > > general path i need to go, but how can i be 100% confident in that > > path. so i have benifit of a doubt, yet a line i cannot see, or do i > > want for too many variables are in each encounter with ethical concers > > too think of such and thus is thus. > > > On Aug 19, 1:46 pm, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Differences between people often come down to core philosophical > > > issues. Simple ideas with vast implications. These issues are often > > > ignored or not seen. Let me take the example of Cuba, just as an > > > illustration. They have free health care and free university > > > education yet there are many of those people that decided to risk > > > their very LIVES on a piece of wood through shark infested waters to > > > get here, where there is no government health care. The core > > > philosophy must be examined. We owe it to each other to dig down to > > > core philosophical positions, rather than assuming you know everything > > > and what is “right.” > > > > You do-gooders in here do not like to discuss money. You think > > > money is not the issue or even "an" issue. I claim that money and all > > > the philosophical issues that go with it cannot be ignored, and are in > > > fact a central factor in all of human activity. It is global. It is > > > part of the man-made system. We need to talk about it, because it is > > > part of the equation. It cannot be left out. > > > > Many believe in “universal” rights, and include government > > > health care as one of those. As I mentioned, here is the US we have > > > a “right to bear arms.” Is that universal? I am not a gun fan, but > > > I think the “right to self defense” IS a universal right. You entrust > > > a government to “enforce” rights. > > > Well, I do not think governments can be trusted to do so, and often > > > do not make the “right” choices. Invading Iraq was a “nationalized” > > > government plan too. Not everyone was for it, but because the > > > government is what it is, that was what happened. I do not consider > > > that a good thing. Governments do not have the best answers quite > > > often, and this needs a full debate. Engaging in that debate MUST > > > include “core philosophy” as that is where the differences really lie. > > > > Core ideas are often not out in the open. They must be dug for in > > > some cases. I don’t see enough digging. I see people who have > > > already concluded, based on their core philosophies, and have no > > > intention of examining or “finding out” why those they oppose think > > > the way they do. We are not so good at articulating these things, > > > but we should try to become better at it. > > > > Some core “rights” and ideas conflict with other core ideas and > > > rights. This needs to be resolved or compromised in some way. Just > > > another example: “we as a society need to do X” I have big > > > problems with these kinds of statements. Just at my core level, > > > “We” trumps the individual. > > > > I will stop here for now. Just needed to get that off my chest. > > > This little post is in no way my “response” to all the vile, nasty, > > > rude accusations from the vastly different core philosophies of all > > > you people out there that chose to ignore my core philosophical > > > issues. You deserve much better, I will try to get to them all.- Hide > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
