Aaron

Actually that's the etymology, but not the actual meaning of the word. Exist came into common usage in the 14th century, so for Latin, it's a relatively new word. The word actually was used to describe the process, not of life, but of living. I believe it was in direct response to the lack of words to describe the process of being, rather than doing. This was in part because of the preclude to the Renaissance, when religion and self expression started to take on a new meaning. Man could be self-expressive and still be faithful, without fear of being called prideful. Or maybe I'm wrong, who knows? Also who cares? The old meaning isn't so important as what it means today. It's not like every time we say "bless you" when someone sneezes, it's because we think someone is going to die of the plague? Meanings change, things get assimilated, get used to it. Aaron edit- Also, I'm clothed in a new hidden agenda, but I can't tell you what it is... okay, I guess I can, it's plaid.

That's not always the case, but if it helps you to sleep at night, that's fine. Aaron

By not adding that into the discussion. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be on the matter. Aaron edit- And I'd ask how the hell we've gone since the beginning of this forum without discussing it and now it's a topic that can't be ignored? I think the truth is that you want to discuss it, even if others don't want to. I'm really not trying to be rude, but you're frustrating me because you wont let it go. I didn't want this to be another us vs. them thread, but rather a deeper discussion on the principles of love as they are described in the original quote.

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Take leave of your sanity, but still be responsible for your actions, that's the most important line in the Gnarls Barkley quote, in my opinion. We should always strive to understand our connection to each other, because it is that connection that is the root of the love within us all. Some don't like the word love, they'd rather use the word compassion, but I think those people are afraid of love, because they've seen it's radiance and been blinded by it, but that's not the whole truth, rather they've seen it's radiance and were frightened of its power. Love is the most powerful thing that exists, it's the root of who we are and why we are, at least that's what I think. Aaron

A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. I think you shouldn't knock bliss, even if it is temporary. Aaron

Maybe I should start putting a disclaimer in my subtitle "A discussion excluding dogs." Aaron

My hidden agenda was to get Apech to correct VMarco's spelling. It all started many decades ago and it required meticulous planning and almost mind boggling logistics, but I finally succeeded. I thought it would be more fulfilling, but honestly, I just don't know what I'm going to do with myself now. Sigh... not having an agenda makes me feel naked. Aaron

I wanted to mention an experience that happened to me today, because it had to do with a 'vicious' dog. I was riding the guy who is letting me live with him's bike and a pit bull came out and trotted by me, I passed him by about 30 feet and he suddenly turned and barreled right towards me growling. I thought I was going to be bitten so I sped up and right in front of me I saw a labrador mix-breed come out and run towards me, I thought it was a pack ready to attack me, but instead he ran past me and charged at the pit bull which was only a few feet away from me by then. The pit bull stopped and started to run away and I made my escape. I really don't care whether the pit bull is a vicious breed or not, all I care about is that someone let it out to roam around the neighborhood and I nearly got bit by it. I'm thankful that the labrador came to my rescue, and I'm certain now that it's intent was to protect me from the other dog, for whatever reason. I'm not a dog, so I can't tell you why, though I know there are many breeds that have been known to save people they don't know, just because they have a loyalty instilled in them, maybe that dog was one of them? Anyways the point made in the Peace thread is a valid one and we can continue to talk about it over there, but for the sake of not sidelining that thread over that one point, I decided to move the topic here. Sorry if that was presumptuous. Aaron

Then lets just agree that we disagree, nothing wrong with that. Our words aren't going to change anything... Case in point- the next door neighbors have three small children, all under eightish, and two german shepherds. The dogs bark at everything that comes near their fence, but they seem to do well with the children. I don't think they're really any threat to the kids, nor me, so long as the fence is closed. They seem fairly responsible and I don't criticize them or talk to them about these types of things. Now if they owned two pit bulls, I wouldn't hesitate to warn them about the dogs and what I've learned. However if the dogs attack their kids, then I still believe they should be held responsible for that. Good people, good dogs, but still responsible, that's all I'm saying. I'm not above recognizing my own experiences being bitten as a child and having a long standing phobia of dogs has colored my opinion on this topic, but much of what I say does stem from my own logical conclusions regarding the topic. Aaron

Scotty get over yourself. You're the same person that recommended that the mods ban anyone that talks about something off topic in a thread. Go screw with someone else that doesn't see your hypocrisy. I'm not wasting my time trying to defend myself when I've done nothing wrong. Aaron

read my reply to scotty.

Do no harm--- don't allow an animal to do harm to yourself or others. The bite has to do serious physical harm, so a chihuahua isn't going to be able to do that kind of damage, but if it was able to and it did cause that kind of physical damage to someone, then they should be held responsible for their pet's actions. Do no harm to yourself or others, doesn't mean you shirk responsibility for your actions. Maybe in pretty pony land people will just be nice and if they do something bad, nothing happens, but in the real world there are consequences for one's actions. I don't care what kind of dog someone owns, they need to be responsible for their pet's actions, that means take responsibility and accept the consequences for what their pets do. If they aren't willing to accept those consequences, then maybe they shouldn't own a pet like that. I'm sure you might feel differently if someone you love is injured by an animal because of someone else's negligence. Forgiveness is compassionate, but sometimes it's not enough, sometimes it takes punishment for someone to learn the error of their ways. Just like spanking a child isn't always wrong (Buddhist monks do it by the way), neither is jail time. Of course I'm sure most people realize that I'm not advocating that everyone who's pet bites someone should have to serve ten years in jail, but the punishment should be commensurable to the injury incurred. Ten years maximum sentence seems too little for many of the incidents that occur. Is ten years in jail worth a child's face and eye? I'll give you points for word play, but I would recommend you choose someone else to play those games with, because I always say what I mean and I stand by what I say. Aaron

Interesting points. Not sure if I agree with you, but I don't need to. Thanks, Aaron

I'm not sure how you're doing it, but I'm very satisfied. Aaron

Well thanks for the suggestion, but I try not to judge others. Aaron

Well you could just not own a vicious dog, then you wouldn't have to worry about it harming anyone and being sent to jail. Texas has it right- Your dog bites someone, 10 years. It kills someone, minimum of 20 years. The compassionate thing to do is deter people from allowing their dogs to harm others, either consciously or unconsciously. Aaron

I was thinking about maybe having a chat session on Saturday (5/11/2012) at 5PM est. Anyone interested in joining me then? Aaron

but where were the parents then? were they being responsible? here is your opinion and if we go down the road of exterminating pit bulls, then another group will say there needs to be no more dobermans, etc etc leading to calls for no more labs. here i am a little surprised aaron becoz you usually follow logic, really? it is a matter of fact? "dont seem"and "matter of fact" in the same sentence, well at least it isnt snarky. but my snarkiness aside, i agree that owners should be held responsible. i do not agree to banning creatures. and even if pit bulls are banned, breeders will come up with another breed that suits their needs. i cant say you are going off topic here, since it is your thread , but lets not do this either. but i digress. again i am surprised at you aaron, i really thought you had a great thing going in the west descending into fascism thread. do not be compliant with those who would erode liberty. responsibility responsibility Our liberty is already eroded. In a perfect world each town would decide how to govern themselves, but sadly we aren't living in a world where that is going to happen, so for right now I'm siding with severe censure and punishment, as in if your dog happens to bite someone or kill them, you need to be held responsible, and not just a slap on the wrist, but jail time for a long time. If you decide to let your kid sit next to a tiger and the tiger kills him or her, you should spend a long, long, long, time in jail for your stupidity. Aaron

Hello V, This has nothing to do with a "me story", rather I don't want this to denigrate into mindless bickering. The topic is an important one and viewing love in different ways is important to understanding the full potential within and without. Because there is already a topic about dogs, I don't think there is a need to go into further discourse using it as an analogy or to prove the point about them. Love is universal. We all feel it and in many different ways. The thing about this quote that I like is that it's got many layers too it and it requires some contemplation to really dig deeper. If you feel you must bring the dog bickering to this thread, I can't stop you, I was only politely asking that people not bring it here so we can actually dig deeper without the animosity already dug up over there. Aaron

Am I the only one that realized they drugged those tigers? In every picture they're limp and asleep. I'm sure if they didn't, then it would only be a matter of time before one attacked someone. The parents who let their kids near them need to learn some freaking common sense. So a monk tells you that the komodo dragon is peaceful and domesticated, are you going to let your child in the cage to pet it? Get real. Freaking ridiculous and irresponsible.

You were bitten by a spider? Wow, sorry to hear that. Why don't you try that argument on the parent who's two year old toddler lost his eye and part of his face because a pit bull mauled him. Or maybe you should go tell the grandson of the old man who was mauled to death by a pit bull while he was watering their garden, I'm sure they'll enjoy the levity. There is a big difference between having a Labrador and a pit bull. One is bred as a hunting dog, specifically for flushing and retrieving, the other is bred to KILL, plain and simple. The fact of the matter is that pit bulls don't seem picky about what they kill once their trigger occurs. There are over 650 cities that restrict the ownership of these types of dogs. It's not because of hysteria, but because of concrete evidence that these dogs were bred to be killers and are still killing. Laugh all you want. Make snarky little comments, but just keep in mind that about one to two times a day someone is being bitten by a pit bull, which is about the same as all other dogs combined. This isn't a problem that's going away, unless we do something about it. I'm all for civil liberties, but if we're going to require that owners register their guns, why shouldn't we require them to register and license their vicious dogs? They should also be held responsible for their dog's actions. In Texas, if your dog bites someone, you can go to jail for up to 10 years. If it kills someone, you can be sentenced up to 20 years. I think this is not only fair, but reasonable. I mean if you shoot someone and wing them, you'll do that kind of time too. Sometimes you need to be reminded that what you own is dangerous and in many cases that only occurs if someone has to suffer consequences for their action (or inaction). Aaron

There's a thread about dogs going on already, can we try and keep this thread's conversation to the quote in the original post? I really liked the quote and I think Cee-Lo has explained the concept of love and hate in a way few people do. Anyways thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Aaron

It seems strange to me that people can't piece together the reasoning behind sexual repression and religions. In fact it astounds me how many people seem to fall for this simple little trick even today, with modern science proving to us that many of the functions that religion deems as unhealthy, are not unhealthy in the least and in fact help decrease our risks of cancer and also reduce stress. With that aside, there are very obvious reasons why certain religions have a prohibition on sex among their ordained members, in particular sex leads to children, which leads to heirs, which reduces the amount of property the religion gains when those people pass on, but even more so, a monk or priest with a family cannot devote all of their income and time to the order. Even more disturbing is that there are no clear dictates by the founders of these religions regarding these things. It seemed to pop up after these religions became actual organizations with centralized structures and strict hierarchies. The fact that the two seemed to go hand and hand and in most cases arise around the same length of time after the foundation of these religious orders seems to show that it is systematic development, rather than something that arises out of spiritual awareness or wisdom. Even more disturbing is the sexual mores religions push on followers, but it's understandable, because essentially a religions purpose is to structure a societies cultural mores. So if one is able to control what a person does, dictating good and bad, they are more apt to be able to control what that person does. I don't have much time, but I thought these might be interesting ideas to address at the start. I think it's worth our time to figure out why monastic traditions tend to follow the same rules of conduct regardless of philosophical and ideological differences. If one scratches the surface they find there's more hiding underneath then one might think. Or of course we can also just ignore it and allow other people to decide what is right and wrong for us. Aaron

I think you're subconsciously attracted to Castanada because you both are obsessed with sex. You seem to talk about it all the time, he used his power and influence to enslave his female followers as sex slaves. If he hadn't been found dead, he'd have been charged with kidnapping most likely. I would suggest looking somewhere else for an authentic system. Castanada (which wasn't even his real name btw) was a fraud and conman. The fact there are people who still believe his BS was authentic shows just how good a conman he was. Also 20/20 or some major news program did an episode on Castanada and they actually talked to the women in his sex cult. Scary shit. He was apparently a very angry, jealous, and paranoid man. Aaron

Hah... Nice trolling. Trying to get someone to respond to your vitriol? Aaron