Cannibal

[Stosh]

41 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Some further thoughts on that hawk that ilumairen and/or Pilgrim may or may not want to shoot.

 

Let´s suppose we decide it´s virtuous not to interfere with nature.  According to this worldview, a hawk gets to be hawkish.  Living creatures often appear violent but all beings are entitled to act in accordance with their nature.  OK, fine.  Now here´s the question: are human beings not also part of the natural world?  If a Bum sees a hawk about to eat a smaller bird and wants to protect the smaller bird, well, I figure that protective impulse is also a natural one.

 

Can we take this attitude of non-interference and apply it to our own behavior? To the behavior of other human beings? Should we? 

 

 

IMO the classics do suggest some things , (it's perhaps the 'Legalist' point of view) , but I don't think that personally we benefit as much to apply it in the wrong places. 

[Lost in Translation]

Behavior, hawkish or otherwise, is a choice. Provided that a choice is made consciously and owned then there is no problem, per se.

 

For example, it is perfectly acceptable for a person to say "I value my own well being above yours and will do what I can to provide for myself, even if that means taking away from you." That is honest, and it gives the other person a chance to reciprocate in kind. What is reprehensible is the person who acts like they care about your well being when they do not, and who takes from you while pretending not to.

[Stosh]

I am not disagreeing with LIT, but there is IMO a lot more to consider about the meaning of your question and what issues this approaches, some key words of which I would like to bring to mind. Capitalism and our legal system ,are both antagonistic, we have sayings like buyer beware , mind your own business , butt out. There is also ,  enlightened self interest,  The Art of War , Machiavelli , survival of the fittest , live n let die, and so forth. 

So , whether we personally take the moral stance that others 'should' be doing as we think , this is not really the virtue of many Classical works. You have called yourself a moral scourge , and in this you would be running against the virtues as these guys would see it, but if you were working for the Spanish Inquisition , you would fit right in.  ( I am exaggerating) 

[Lost in Translation]

4 minutes ago, Stosh said:

You have called yourself a moral scourge , and in this you would be running against the virtues as these guys would see it, but if you were working for the Spanish Inquisition , you would fit right in.

 

You have piqued my interest. I don't know where this came from but am eager to find out. 

[Stosh]

2 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

You have piqued my interest. I don't know where this came from but am eager to find out. 

Dude its all over the classics , why do you think MH ( may he rest in peace) called himself an Anarchist. It wasn't the revolutionary kind , it was the kind which left him to his moral code , and he left others to theirs. Once you take this stance , you consider yourself fully responsible. When folks instead ,gang up to impose a uniform morality they end up having to punish and so forth, things get ugly.  

I did a little interview with him , and it went smoothly , as long as I left him to his privacy , his choices,and I wasn't pushing him.Similarly , Good talk show hosts also learn how to allow the guest to pursue ,or not ,whatever they like. And it is a very pleasant and respectful way to converse , or interact in general.  It is just central to all ones social interactions.

Buddhism also approaches non-interference , with right speech , and so forth. Its even embodied in the 'Prime Directive' of Star Trek!    But its not Christian ethic really. ( which is why Jesus was Crucified ) 

[Lost in Translation]

5 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Dude its all over the classics

 

Let's back up a bit. I was asking about "moral scourge." I don't see that mentioned before in the thread so I asked about it. Also, who are "these guys?" Do you mean the people in this thread, or on TDB, or was there supposed to be a link to some external page? Lastly, where does the "Spanish Inquisition" come in to this topic? Is it related to hawks and doves, or is that a response to what I wrote a couple hours ago about choice?

[Stosh]

Luke called himself a moral scourge, elsewhere.

These guys were the authors or philosophers I mentioned in that post.

The Spanish Inquisition is known for trying to promote their worldview in brutal ways, but in that time, it wasn't considered abnormal, To benefit the soul of someone they were torturing. Which is a basic flaw of being your brothers keeper.

[liminal_luke]

22 hours ago, Stosh said:

Luke called himself a moral scourge, elsewhere.

 

It doesn´t matter I suppose -- and I´m being a little nitpicky here -- but when it comes to my own assessment of myself I like to be exact. I raised the question of whether or not I was a "moral scold"; I did not make an out-and-out attribution. 

 

Here´s the exact quote I believe you are referring to...

 

Have I become that most annoying of characters -- the moral scold?

Edited March 14, 2019 by liminal_luke

[Lost in Translation]

@liminal_luke @Stosh I actually like the phrase "Moral Scourge." Perhaps I'll have some label buttons whipped up..., wear one proudly on my chest. 

 

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

 

It doesn´t matter I suppose -- and I´m being a little nitpicky here -- but when it comes to my own assessment of myself I like to be exact. I raised the question of whether or not I was a "moral scold"; I did not make an out-and-out attribution. 

 

Here´s the exact quote I believe you are referring to...

 

Have I become that most annoying of characters -- the moral scold?

Yes you had , and therefore you used the label -( its a creative and vivid use of the language though).

Using the label indicates that you know full well , its implications , That you think you are right, and that this gives you the right, to tell other people what they should be doing. Now you are making nitpicky argument , and so this means you are full aware that the substantive part of what is said is true , but you have some ... nitpicky reason that makes you think you are 'correct' again, and just as I keep describing, you show up to tell me what to say! 

 

Ah, I see LIT likes the phrase as well ! 

Well done. 

Are my eyes failing me again , and am I seeing the phrase scourge or scold? I think I may have to see a shrink. 

Now I have to take credit for the term. 

Its not really very different though , and I didn't use quotation marks. 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Stosh

[liminal_luke]

Stosh...

 

Please don´t misquote me.  I raised the question of whether I was a moral scold.  I did not say that I was one.  There´s a big difference.  I often talk about myself in a self-deprecating way.  It´s part of my personality and an aspect of my writing style, how I express myself.

 

If it´s your opinion that I´m a moral scold, that´s fine.  You´re welcome to say so.  But please don´t say that I said that about myself.  I raised the topic as a question.  

 

In the OP, Lost in Translation (an inveterate moral scourge) says: None of us came here to tear each other apart.  I encourage everyone who reads this to spend some time in reflection on this matter. -- Looks like we´re back on topic.

 

LL

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

In the OP, Lost in Translation (an inveterate moral scourge) says: None of us came here to tear each other apart.  I encourage everyone who reads this to spend some time in reflection on this matter. -- Looks like we´re back on topic.

 

I sometimes fail to take my own advise.

 

Seriously, though: "Moral Scourge" is an awesome phrase. It would be an excellent title for a blog or a weekly opinion column.

[liminal_luke]

LIT,

 

Moral scourge is a great phrase, isn´t it?  It has more of a deliciously nasty bite to it than the more tepid term, moral scold.  I love that you´re embracing moral scourginess so wholeheartedly.  Perhaps you could start the opinion column you suggest in your PPD?

[Lost in Translation]

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

LIT,

 

Moral scourge is a great phrase, isn´t it?  It has more of a deliciously nasty bite to it than the more tepid term, moral scold.  I love that you´re embracing moral scourginess so wholeheartedly.  Perhaps you could start the opinion column you suggest in your PPD?

 

Maybe. The problem is I'm judgmental enough as is. I'm afraid to unleash my full judgement in column form. It might be cathartic but would probably get me banned. Perhaps twitter...

 

[liminal_luke]

3 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

 Perhaps twitter...

 

 

Twitter seems like a fitting place for short caustic comments.  It seems to work for a certain president anyway...

[Stosh]

25 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Stosh...

 

Please don´t misquote me.  I raised the question of whether I was a moral scold.  I did not say that I was one.  There´s a big difference.  I often talk about myself in a self-deprecating way.  It´s part of my personality and an aspect of my writing style, how I express myself.

 

If it´s your opinion that I´m a moral scold, that´s fine.  You´re welcome to say so.  But please don´t say that I said that about myself.  I raised the topic as a question.  

 

In the OP, Lost in Translation (an inveterate moral scourge) says: None of us came here to tear each other apart.  I encourage everyone who reads this to spend some time in reflection on this matter. -- Looks like we´re back on topic.

 

LL

I didn't quote you . I attributed a sentiment , and it looked to me that you were asking 'rhetorically' because you wanted someone to deny the allegation. If you're self deprecating, does that mean you do not believe what youre saying , or that you do? 

And are you chastising me for using the term scourge , or attributing that you asserted yourself a scold? Why ? you admit you're self deprecating, doesn't that admit you were attributing a negative thing to yourself? 

Edited March 14, 2019 by Stosh

[liminal_luke]

15 minutes ago, Stosh said:

I didn't quote you . I attributed a sentiment , and it looked to me that you were asking 'rhetorically' because you wanted someone to deny the allegation. If you're self deprecating, does that mean you do not believe what youre saying , or that you do? 

 

You originally said that I said I was a moral scourge.  That´s quoting.  My only objection here is that I didn´t actually say that.  

 

Now if you interpret my words to mean that I think that about myself (and am hoping someone will "deny the allegation") then that´s a different matter.  That wouldn´t be my take on it, but interpretation is a subjective thing and we all interpret each other according to our worldview and perceptions.  I´ve no argument with any interpretation you´d care to make.

 

(I´ll leave the question of whether I believe the words I write for another day.  Suffice it to say that I often say things in an ironic way, or in a way that I hope will be perceived as humorous, and don´t always expect to be taken literally.)

Edited March 14, 2019 by liminal_luke

[Stosh]

3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

You originally said that I said I was a moral scourge.  That´s quoting.  My only objection here is that I didn´t actually say that.  

I googled 'indirect quote' , which is a paraphrase, and doesn't use quotation marks ,( like I didnt)  Thing is, that I couldn't find anywhere that it was wrong to paraphrase.  To paraphrase is to use my words to express what what I think you consider to be your point. It is not expected to be exact , and I don't think anyone holds you accountable for a paraphrase. ( so if I use the word 'scourge' or 'scold' is still covered under the paraphrase conditions. 

 

3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Now if you interpret my words to mean that I think that about myself (and am hoping someone will "deny the allegation") then that´s a different matter.  That wouldn´t be my take on it, but interpretation is a subjective thing and we all interpret each other according to our worldview and perceptions.  I´ve no argument with any interpretation you´d care to make.

Well that is still my interpretation ( which you allow) ,

that you were self deprecating ,( you said that , correct? )

You do not believe the negative thing you implied about yourself , if you implied it. 

And the only thing you have a problem with is that I said that you said something , which you only implied.

So you were giving me a hard time,  for taking what you implied about yourself as -truly your opinion.

That's really kind of unfair . 

I would hope you stop with the fake self deprecating statements, take ownership, ( as in keeping the term moral scourge) 

and not do what was done in this case,( set me up for a correction that you incurred) a lot.  

 

You still never responded to the thing where I accuse you of thinking you are right , and therefore you think you have a right to tell others what to do. I notice this wandering off thing  , so don't think I don't notice. 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

(I´ll leave the question of whether I believe the words I write for another day.)

Yeah that is going to take a long time to get a spin on. Take your time. I'll wait. I like you. 

[liminal_luke]

Whew...I´d hoped that I could simply make the point that I didn´t actually say something you said I said and leave it at that.  Since I´d rather this thread not turn into an in-depth examination of my writing style or character (fascinating though that conversation might be) I´ll bow out so that anybody so inclined can continue to talk about cannibalization.

[ilumairen]

4 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

Whew...I´d hoped that I could simply make the point that I didn´t actually say something you said I said and leave it at that.  Since I´d rather this thread not turn into an in-depth examination of my writing style or character (fascinating though that conversation might be) I´ll bow out so that anybody so inclined can continue to talk about cannibalization.

 

:Pssst:

 

He just put you off of your dinner. 

 

:setting out some chocolate chip cookies

 

:

[Mudfoot]

On 2019-03-09 at 3:10 AM, Lost in Translation said:

 

I for one, don't enjoy being a cannibal. I suspect no one else here enjoys that either. None of us came here looking to tear each other apart.

 

You are only a cannibal if you eat what you kill. 

Otherwise, you are just manifesting "resource protection potential". 

 

Question: Is that an adaptive behavior in this environment? 

[Lost in Translation]

8 hours ago, Mudfoot said:

Question: Is that an adaptive behavior in this environment? 

 

Could you be more specific?

[Mudfoot]

25 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

Could you be more specific?

Does the satisfaction of being argumentative and critical on a forum upweight the increased risk of getting more directed critique yourself. 

And, if you push it too hard, risk suspension or a ban. 

 

As in real life, how dominant/aggressive behavior does society accept from a specific member of the group? 

[Lost in Translation]

2 minutes ago, Mudfoot said:

Does the satisfaction of being argumentative and critical on a forum upweight the increased risk of getting more directed critique yourself. 

And, if you push it too hard, risk suspension or a ban. 

 

As in real life, how dominant/aggressive behavior does society accept from a specific member of the group? 

 

Response to the first question: I don't feel any satisfaction at being argumentative or critical. Perhaps there is a fleeting satisfaction, but it lasts about as long as it take to click send, which is to say not long at all. As for being critiqued, I don't mind that. My thoughts complete enough to withstand criticism. I actually want legitimate criticism since it sheds light on areas that I may not have considered and gives me opportunity to grown. What I find frustrating are the poorly constructed, highly emotional, knee-jerk talking point arguments that I see.

 

Response to the second question: Dominant/aggressive behavior in and of itself is not an issue. It's the passive-aggressive behavior that flaunts the rules of established society that concern me. For example, there is a growing mob mentality that demands absolute conformity of thought. Disobedience is met by ostracism and repudiation. People online have had their personal information leaked, their houses surrounded by protesters, their spouses and children attacked. This is not the act of a corrupt government, but of a corrupt people, and I see this corruption growing daily. It is a big concern to me, since if the people of a nation are unable to contain their passions then the government of said nation will control their passions for them, and that IS the road to fascism.

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

 I actually want legitimate criticism since it sheds light on areas that I may not have considered and gives me opportunity to grown. 

 

Agreed.  I´ve learned a lot from legitimate criticism here over the years.  As you note, however, the critical impulse can go dreadfully wrong.  There´s a world of difference between I disagree and here´s why and I disagree you stupid idiot. Unfortunately, the latter is very common, though usually not as explicitly worded as I´ve put it.

 

Many people here are very skilled denigrators, very subtle  They come on like judgy ninjas, always careful to stay just out of the reach of moderation, vague enough to claim that their attacks have been "misunderstood."  Theoretically, it´s possible to learn from these people, too.  Some very evolved folks (you may be one of them) can listen to the arguments of curmudgeons and trolls and find the gold.  Generally speaking, I can´t.  Once I get that someone is criticizing my character -- not just challenging my thoughts but actually criticizing my character -- it´s game over as far as learning from the conversation goes.

Edited March 15, 2019 by liminal_luke