On Sep 1, 3:33 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Wow! Your the one with
> the incandsent and vacuous language.
That is what I have to offer, take it or leave it
> How about the "I've heard it all before speech!"
It is a new spin on it, check the wordage, and I thought I had the
right to add yet another "blowhard" speech
> It is amazing how easy the mechanics turn out to
> be! Look at a simple problem like feeding the starving in Africa.
> There is no economic problem in doing that. In fact it is easy.
So why haven't you done it yet? (I believe that is a legitimate
question for anyone claiming something is "easy." ) It is really
easy to spend someone else's money, I will give you that. And the
question is not only feeding them for a day.
> Do you realize what a lack of
> consciousness could cost! In dollar terms? Has cost?
Yes, good point, what I am questioning is the consciousness you
propose however, as is my right to question.
> Working out the details is important but standing around yelling "We
> have to do something now!" without considering carefully what to do is
> wrong
I did not propose that anywhere, I am questioning the mentality and
moral consequences of your "decided truth" on matters of how to handle
world problems
> The financial planning comes at the very end and its impact is
> highly overrated.
Entirely your opinion and not mine at all. I consider the work, where
any money comes from. as an "important" consideration for any action
at all.
> Ah your appeal to "making sense" and your reduction of that to
> mechanism!
I did make the mistake of not saying "makes sense for the person doing
it" if that makes any difference to you, and I don't care if it does,
as I am arguing my position.
> Wrong! Look at the declaration of independence. Where do you think the
> idea of liberty came from.
Exactly! Liberty of individuals
> Do you really think that all men are
> created equal?
No, and that is part of my point, thank you.
>If so on what basis. Some are smart, some not. Some are
> pretty, some not. So why have any equality at all? Do you think you
> can base laws on money and mechanics... where you.... excuse the
> term .... "live"......?!*%$
I would like to see laws based on the individual action, as I see ALL
rights as individual rights.
> > Human nature is completely ignored.
>
> Outrageous claim. It is trans-cultural and I believe even trans-
> special to some extent. Mamalian perhaps. Love drives the world much
> more than money ever will. You are a fool if you believe otherwise.
Your opinion, not mine.
> No, but each is a person. Each is of value inherently because they
> exist! And each is capable of good.
Absolutely!
> Find me 20 years when nothing has changed in history. You, sir, are a
> fool!
I meant in terms of money, and how the world operates on it
> As a singe instance just consider the economic implications of trust.
> No, even more limited. Just consider it on the value of a dollar. Just
> consider the relationship between trust and money.
>
> Or, if you'd like, consider the paradigm of value.
I would LOVE TO! what do you have in mind! I LOVE talking about
"value!"
> Or consider the motivation for a vow of poverty.
People are funny, I wouldn't do it, but I would never stop anybody
from doing it. If that is your thing? You go with it.
> > Just “how”, in every aspect, is each meal delivered to every person,
> > three times a day, throughout the world?
>
> Ok, so you want an answer? Your question is so rhetorical it is
> breathtaking.
It is anything BUT rhetorical, I want an answer to your rediculous
proposal that comes without one. But I noticed you didn't have
anything close to an answer , except "it's easy" Gee, what an
answer. You can crank out a 3000 word essay on any other topic in the
world, and I reduce you to one sentence.
> Do you know what should be done? Inform us! Tell me what needs to be
> done. My problem is that I don't think that that is the issue. We just
> don't want to do it. And why we don't is the real problem. Its not a
> mechanical one. Its not an economic one. There is plenty of wasted
> time we could use.
No answer, and just your opinion. If it is not a problem than go fix
it. When you use "we" it is a cop-out.
what you really mean is "someone else" should fix it.
> If you would just look at your own post and apply it to itself it
> might help.
I did. It is not a perfect post by any stretch. It needs
clarification, I am working on it.
> Questions like these always
>
> > result in dead silence.
>
> Oh do they! Have you heard my silence?! Where? In my exclamation
> marks?
No, in your lack of answers! Glaring! from my point of view! I asked
a specific question about the exact methods, step by step, and you
dodged it.
> To put it simply: We need to become more aware of the meaning of our
> lives so that the source of good becomes more apparent culturally and
> we focus on relieving each other's suffering and celebrating the life
> we have together.
So you have the definition of good! Wow! How lucky you are. You
don't mind if we debate that a little do you? I mean, every
philosopher in human history has debated it and they disagreed, so you
are not telling me YOU have the exclusive do you?
> But there is a problem. Becoming aware is not easy.
Tell me about it. You have a point there! Just don't go procaliming
you have the ultimate definitions of "good" OK? Fair?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
