Karl

Then you are committing the fallacy of equivocation. Hurting/not hurting someone's feelings isn't anything to do with love, but with politeness. Love is something that you feel for a value you wish to possess, or that you may currently possess. If you take care to put the value before the feeling then you can't go far wrong. The problem is that people resort to feelings to make judgements and they aren't very reliable. If feelings can be hurt, then there is something wrong with the philosophy that underpins them. It's useful to use feelings as a guide to how far we have strayed from reality.

Maybe you should learn to love them ;-)

It doesn't take any courage to love, but it can take immense amounts of courage to defend the things that you love.

We have free will and reason that is our nature as independent entities within the greater scope of the universe. First we must obey nature before we begin to adapt nature. The universe doesn't tell us how we must act, it puts limits on how we can act. To believe a song comes on the radio, a black cat crosses our path or a passing comet foretells our actions is to misunderstand causality. It is to believe in a mystic universe and it is the first thing to dispense with if we wish to become enlightened.

Indiscriminate tolerance is exactly the same as indiscriminate condemnation. That goes to the heart of it. As long as we are free to choose, then moral judgement becomes a necessity. There isn't an easy yardstick for applying moral judgement. It's a tough call trying to sort out evil from good, but it must be done, there is no neutral position that one can take on the subject no matter how remote it might seem. We must act as judges at all times and in every way to call out evil and never to excuse it, nor evade the responsibility of pronouncing judgement. We, each and everyone of us hold this solemn responsibility and that responsibility extends to logically justifying our own judgements. "Judge and prepare to be judged" is the only way to avoid chaos. It is the compromisers that create the problems. Those who see only grey, who say 'do not judge in case you are judged", who believe good and evil cannot be identified and so it is better not to try. It is the slackers, the compromisers, the indiscriminate tolerant that allow evil to flourish so that their own evil is not judged. This is what results in moral decay and the decline of civilisation.

what about positive discriminatory laws, or laws to support vested interests, or those that make free speech illegal, censor books, consensual sexual activity, free association, allow unlimited surveillance, or those that can confiscate property, or kidnap people with threat of coercive force ?

I thought it was the stork ?

Like an eye seeing eye, it isn't possible to be conscious of consciousness. However, consciousness is dynamic, as it identifies and integrates more things within its awareness, so it expands to cover those new things and of course that means we are expanding.

That made me feel very sad. I know this is completely true and in my small way, this is what I fight against. Of necessity my words often come across as severe, because I am totally intolerant of tolerance because, as your post shows, this is precisely where it is leading. To know and to do nothing is tolerance; to see and yet act blind is tolerance; to hear and pretend that you did not hear, that is tolerance. First we must end moral relativism-humility, tolerance, duty or sacrifice are pure evil. The IQ sinks because we are losing our independence and our ability to reason. We have swapped independence for the collective which is driven by media, state school, films, comics, art, music, architecture and books. We banished logic and reason then replaced it with pragmatism and relativism. There is no hope for us if we do not exit this dive. We are trying to make the natural world our master, to act like bees, ants or a stick of celery. It is a slow kind of suicide, we are voluntarily giving up all that makes us so unique in the universe. If there were a God he would be angry, if there were angels they would weep tears of rage.

If only I could be so concise.

One thing about definitions that are discovered by looking in a dictionary. They are not conclusive truths or perfect definitions, they can be used as a rough guide ( and in some cases they are very accurate), but in an argument it is the participants that set the definitions. In this case, why is it that tolerance is included in the fall of civilisation. You might disagree with this inclusion, preferring to argue that it is a necessity, so we set out our stall and agree those definitions. Taking your example of the LGBT community. I can choose to like, dislike, or simply have no opinion on someone that demonstrates a different sexual preference. I might decide I don't wish to host a homosexual in my house, business or sit next to them in a restaurant. That would be my business. That opinion, or view does not mean I have any right to prevent homosexuals from going about their business, I might not like them sitting next to me in a restaurant, then I will either stay, or move. If a homosexual comes into my shop I should be able to refuse them service. I can't beat them, spit on them or any other form of violence, but I should be able to politely ask them to leave and expect them to do so. In the above case it is a respecting of each persons opinion regardless if one agrees with it. This is not tolerance, it is peaceful assertion of ones own judgement be that from the perspective of the homosexual or the heterosexual. Tolerance means to drop that judgement, to refuse to exercise judgement, to have no opinion at all about anything. Tolerance is a word very similar to sacrifice. It is always those that do not respect others opinions that want to force tolerance on other people. These people believe their actions and attitudes must not only be respected, but also condoned and legitimised by others. The end result is the politicisation of their opinions and actions that force people to sit next to them, force them to employ, serve and welcome them. They are refusing to respect the other persons opinion and invoke third party thugs (Government) to ensure they get their way.

Those kind of opinions and no-harmful actions don't require tolerance anyway. If you like cherries and I prefer grapes then I'm not being tolerant by accepting this is your preference. You might be working on your house next to me and creating mess and disturbance, but I accept that you need to do that work because at some time I might also carry out similar works. Neither of those things is tolerance.

Tolerance is the withholding of judgement and therefore justice. Tolerance is a refusal to judge and act on that judgement. It is to know that something impoverishes ones life and to accept that impoverishment. No rational person should be tolerant as long as they are free to decide, there are occasions where you aren't free to decide, but that is not tolerance, it is a practical necessity. For instance, if a thief aims a gun at your head and steals your wallet, then you are not being tolerant of the thief, you are forced to accept the robbery because the outcome is potentially grimmer if you resist. Tolerance is to say that you will refuse to do something to help yourself even when conditions make it entirely possible to do so. Violence does not force tolerance, it forces you not to act on judgement, to prevent the use of reason to do so. Violence is the antithesis of reason, tolerance is the abdication of reason and hence the refusal to judge.

Of course we must have a right to private property and to pass this on in perpetuity. Jefferson didn't use the in that sense. The problem occurs when there is a claim on property/land from the distant past. The survivors of the lineage of Adam/Eve should not be able to claim that they are the true owners of the Earth for instance. Britain was invaded by many tribes, the very last being the Normans, but it would be crazy for living relatives that were disposed of lands to claim them. This applies to productive use of land/ property. If a plot/house has been left vacant and has deteriorated to an extent it has become a wilderness on which there is no direct way to identify the extent of ownership, then it should be auctioned and the cash raised held in perpetuity for any potential claimants that might come forward.

Is that like the one where Seimens said they would move out of the U.K., the stock market would tank and the pound collapse ? Or maybe it was the world war, the immigrants in Calais getting parked in Kent ? Weren't all the banks going to leave if the vote went against them and Nissan was shutting up shop ? Weren't interest rates going to go up ? Weren't the USA refusing to deal with us ? Weren't the Germans and French going to slap on Tarriffs and refuse to sell us their cars, wine and cheese ? The delusion was in the remainers camp. Not only were there forecasts and fear mongering completely wrong, but the opposite has happened. The companies that promised to leave have stayed and are starting to invest, the commonwealth countries, China and the USA have approached us already about trade deals. The stock market has increased, the pound has rebounded. We didn't go to war. The EU haven't slapped any tariffs on us and are now capitulating and withdrawing their empty threats. Even Merkel has admitted that the stream of refugees she allowed to flood Europe has provided cover for thousands of ISIS jihadists-something Farage was attacked for saying.

Or democracy.

It appears you have been taken in by the remainers media power and Twitter storm. The leave campaigners had political figureheads appointed by the state, but it wasn't these people who influenced the voters, neither were these people responsible for any plan post Brexit. Any and all plans are the responsibility of the democratically elected party under the leadership of the PM. The only 'racial tension' is a fantasy story by the media who are continually stirring the bitterness of the remainers. It is you and your ilk that are unable to accept defeat and it is you who are resentful and bitter. You have to fabricate a story around how the leavers 'were sold a dud' or 'didn't know what they were voting for'. That attitude is contemptuous and arrogant. The leave campaigners of which myself and Chang are two, were in no doubt about what we were voting for. Neither of us were 'sold a dud' and neither will be 'praying for a compromise'. The winning leave side have continually reached out an olive branch to the remainers but all we get is arrogant dismissal and dummy spitting. We are bombarded with spite and lies in order to make it seem that we are ignorant, misinformed, Neanderthal, lumpen racists. So, let me withdraw that branch and put my boot up the arse of the remainers. We won, you lost, so it is you who will have to compromise whilst we stick up our middle fingers. We are British after all, we don't cow tow to anyone and we can put up with as much pain as is required to have our victory. We have proven we can beat the establishment and that their words of terror hold far less fear for us than it does for them.

What you are missing is the mood of the people. I witnessed this first hand amongst a bunch of biking buddies during an after ride beer. The only Remainer in the group was a public sector worker who had retired (along with his public sector wife) at 50 on a very handsome gold plated pension which has given him a lifestyle better than when he was working. The contrast with another member aged 65 and still working driving plant was stark. Something has gone badly wrong. The majority of private sector workers were conned into believing that the state would look after their every need if they just worked hard and paid their dues. The contract those people accepted was a lie. Meanwhile, anyone in the pay of the Government, or using Government largesse to protect their investments has been raking in the cash. The referendum wasn't really about the EU, although important, it is about the systematic destruction of the working/middle/entrepreneur class and their lifestyles and opportunities for themselves and their families. It is the workers who are waking from a very restless sleep to discover that the state has quietly nicked everything including their bed. Not only are they not going to be looked after, but their families have had their opportunities smashed to nothing. Under May The state is going to throw taxpayers money at the problem in an effort to quietness the angry mob. It will have to borrow the money of course and all the efforts will be nothing more than giant job creation schemes and pragmatic confetti of infrastructure improvements. Essentially this is putting glitter on a turd in order to make the workers hovels look and smell a bit nicer. May will pay lip service to Brexit and the EU will extend the hand of political compromise. I doubt that bread and circuses are going to quiet the mob. I saw the anger in the eyes of my biking buddies and the casting away of pleasantries and politeness. If this spark has caught, as I believe it has, then things have already gone way past the turd polishing stage.

Along with altruism, duty and sacrifice which are all the same thing. Tolerance is the antithesis of judgement and judgement is the necessity of cvilised, rational behaviour.

KTM 990 SMT I don't do 'roughing' these days. Hotels and B&B and a caravan at a pinch. It's raining again today and the posse is having a mini revolution and refusing to get another soaking. Yesterday a rider in an organised group from USA had one of their party crash into a car. The impact slider off his knee cap. We watched the helicopter flying over our hotel on the way to hospital. That's always a bit sobering.

It shouldn't be. Objectivism is firmly grounded in reality so has no floating concepts. Rand had begun to investigate a mathematical connection between cognition and reality. There is lots of interesting work to do on inductive reasoning as well as definitions of physics concepts.

Not 20 days, 3 nights. I'm in Scotland now. I know because it rained on the 5 hour ride up and I woke up to find more rain. The rest of the lads rode to Mallaig, took the ferry to Skye, then the bridge back. I didn't fancy 8 hours in the rain so rode down to rain soaked Oban. Took me just over 2.5 hours with a brief stop. I was soggy enough after that short trip, just waiting for the drowned rats to return. It's 17:31 and still raining. Tommorrow is forecast.....more rain and Monday......very wet again :-/ You have to get used to listening to the drummer. Think of it like watching the road instead of the windscreen wipers ....linking nicely with the weather. Taylor's are nice, mines been all over Europe with me. Sometimes I play and sing if I'm asked. Trouble is I like alt rock, they expect Bob Dylan and get Kurt Cobain. I was in the local guitar shop-as you do- just browsing and I asked the owner which was his favourite acoustic. He picked out this really nice instrument and I glanced at the price tag-a very reasonable £450. I started playing it-fabulous thing, much better than anything I've ever used. I began thinking seriously about trading the Taylor in against, for the price it was totally stunning and I had definitely fallen in love with it. I was thinking through the best way to make a deal and I delay glanced in a disinterested way at the price tag and took an intake of breath, somehow I had missed a digit. It was £3450. No wonder it played so beautifully. Too good for my level of playing, but at £450 it would have been a Ferrari for Chevy volt money. Needless to say I still own the Taylor :-)°

In a relative sense if you travel a lot on jet aircraft you age very slightly slower than those who don't fly. That advantage disappears if you eat the onboard snacks.

That's what I meant about having the wider view. The band is a unit with the audience. If the guitarists does an intro they aren't setting the tempo. The problem with a lot of bands is that the lead guitarist is a prima Donna and is constantly trying to usurp the rest of the band. Once the guitarists set the pace it all goes to bits. It's funny how the other musicians won't listen to the drummer because they have their practice pace in their heads. At one time I played the drums for one song by a more professional band and really enjoyed the experience because I could pull/push the tempo and the band knew instantly how to follow. The drummer has to have an empathy with the audience and transmit it to the rest of the band. It's a terrific feeling when you get this right. You can throw in little surprises and watch the audience respond back.

There were a couple of forums one being this one. I didn't get involved with the responses except to suggest that AYP should not require defence. It got quite heated at one time which was when I think it struck me that it wasn't quite what it portrayed itself and had gone beyond the simplicity of individual practice. I actually do understand what Yogani is aiming at, as the forum should be a resource centre for those practising AYP. It isn't that different here. I don't practice at all these days, I'm a philosophical interloper, so I stay strictly to the general/off topic areas and have no wish to interfere in others practices in the specific forum areas. It makes for a more open minded area for those who are coming off practices, moving onto new practices/ just getting started.