Spirituality
13 Nov 15
17 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeNothing meaningless about it! After listening to some college students complain about life
In other words your thread is meaningless.
You are not limiting the scope of answers by making the question clear.
What you are doing by making the question clear is making a meaningful answer possible.
in this country it seemed to me that they really don't have a clue about life. My take on some
of their complaints was they think they are owed a struggle free life and everyone needs to
be blowing smoke up their butts to make them feel good about themselves.
I don't think real life is ever like that, there are going to be hard ships in life, not everyone
is going to like you and some are going to dislike you no matter what you say and do,
none of which you have any control over. You can either wilt or simply move on, because
that is life. That lead me to ask the question the way I did, I didn't feel the need to be very
specific mainly because people view the world differently than I do, but if they feel owed
anything than no matter how they define it I thought they would share that part of it.
Can you come up with a better way of asking?
I hope so, but that was how I asked it at the time.
Originally posted by KellyJayWas this in response to the student protests at Yale? Or some other event?
Nothing meaningless about it! After listening to some college students complain about life
in this country it seemed to me that they really don't have a clue about life. My take on some
of their complaints was they think they are owed a struggle free life and everyone needs to
be blowing smoke up their butts to make them feel good about themselves.
I ...[text shortened]... an you come up with a better way of asking?
I hope so, but that was how I asked it at the time.
At any rate, no the world does not owe anything, not that the inverse would make much sense. But the question begins to make more sense when we restrict attention to interpersonal relationships and member treatment within our normative communities and, relatedly, to structures of society and government, etc. There certainly are some reasonable expectations regarding things we owe to each other in this sense, and I highly doubt you would deny that. The problem you are highlighting is that some persons at some times have expectations here that are not altogether reasonable, along with perhaps a bloated understanding of their own standing. Or some such.
By the way, having smoke blown up one's butt feels good? I wouldn't know about that.
17 Nov 15
Originally posted by LemonJelloI agree we do and should have some reasonable expectations regarding things we owe
Was this in response to the student protests at Yale? Or some other event?
At any rate, no the world does not owe anything, not that the inverse would make much sense. But the question begins to make more sense when we restrict attention to interpersonal relationships and member treatment within our normative communities and, relatedly, to structures ...[text shortened]... e such.
By the way, having smoke blown up one's butt feels good? I wouldn't know about that.
each other; however, that means we have to show them to others long before we should
demand them for ourselves don't you think?
I don't recall which college produced the kid that said she was sick and tired other's
First Amendment rights of free speech. I did not know if I should have laughed or cried
at her. Freedom of speech must be respected for those we disagree with, or no one
has it. Bottom lined if the only accepted speech is what is accepted by just some, then
we have lost our freedom to speak our minds as we see fit.
Those that hate the ability of those that disagree with them to speak publically, they are
their own worst enemies in my opinion in the long run.
17 Nov 15
Originally posted by LemonJelloBy the way, having smoke blown up one's butt feels good? I wouldn't know about that.
Was this in response to the student protests at Yale? Or some other event?
At any rate, no the world does not owe anything, not that the inverse would make much sense. But the question begins to make more sense when we restrict attention to interpersonal relationships and member treatment within our normative communities and, relatedly, to structures ...[text shortened]... e such.
By the way, having smoke blown up one's butt feels good? I wouldn't know about that.
You are a wonderful person, a delight to read, so well rounded, so well informed, you for
just being here deserve a participation award, they should give you rating points just to
abide on this chess site! You are the cream of the crop, there is none like you in wisdom
and you are such a joy to read. We all get smarter just seeing you name on a post, and if
we are blessed to be able to open your posts and read them our IQ just go up, because
of the wisdom you selflessly pour into all you write. 🙂
17 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI suspect I have misunderstood your question, but since there is little or no interest in the topics I'm bringing up, I'm pretty sure it's a waste of time anyway
Would you? Have you? I suspect not.
[b]I can offer a brief physical exercise you can try if u r interested
No, not interested.[/b]
17 Nov 15
Originally posted by KellyJayHe may have even raised my IQ half a point and that is hugh.
[b]By the way, having smoke blown up one's butt feels good? I wouldn't know about that.
You are a wonderful person, a delight to read, so well rounded, so well informed, you for
just being here deserve a participation award, they should give you rating points just to
abide on this chess site! You are the cream of the crop, there is none like you i ...[text shortened]... d read them our IQ just go up, because
of the wisdom you selflessly pour into all you write. 🙂[/b]
Anyway I think he may have given me a clue to what you mean. You might have also asked if people should have to work for a living and for their goals in life or should all their needs and wants be given to them as a right. Am I geting close?
17 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't believe you are referring to Islamic terrorists. So you must be referring to the forces in nature, like those that create earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, thunder storms, etc.
On the flip side the 'world' spends most of it's time actively trying to kill you.
So it's probably a wash.
17 Nov 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI wanted to avoid me telling you if you are right or wrong. Your point of view is as valid
He may have even raised my IQ half a point and that is hugh.
Anyway I think he may have given me a clue to what you mean. You might have also asked if people should have to work for a living and for their goals in life or should all their needs and wants be given to them as a right. Am I geting close?
as mine is here.
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by KellyJayIf I understand your point, it implies that basic rights and liberties extend equally to all citizens. I agree. I like the writings of John Rawls, and this idea is more or less the first, most basic principle in justice as fairness. This is interrelated with your point that it requires one to respect commitments to others just as much as they are demanded from others.
I agree we do and should have some reasonable expectations regarding things we owe
each other; however, that means we have to show them to others long before we should
demand them for ourselves don't you think?
I don't recall which college produced the kid that said she was sick and tired other's
First Amendment rights of free speech. I did not know i ...[text shortened]... with them to speak publically, they are
their own worst enemies in my opinion in the long run.
If you take the example of freedom of speech then, in accordance with the above principle, yes the freedom extends to all citizens regardless if you substantively agree with them or not. This is not to imply that the freedom extends to and protects anything one could conceivably utter, which it does not and against which there are obvious counterexamples. However, the spirit of your point is that one ought to respect the basic rights of another just as he or she respects his or her own rights. That is correct, and failure to do so is a failure of rationality. I would guess the failure to act rationally in these cases is often precipitated by strong emotional responses on hot-button issues.
18 Nov 15
Originally posted by KellyJayNo need to state the obvious. 😉
[b]By the way, having smoke blown up one's butt feels good? I wouldn't know about that.
You are a wonderful person, a delight to read, so well rounded, so well informed, you for
just being here deserve a participation award, they should give you rating points just to
abide on this chess site! You are the cream of the crop, there is none like you i ...[text shortened]... d read them our IQ just go up, because
of the wisdom you selflessly pour into all you write. 🙂[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Nov 15
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsAllen Boesak ?
No.
Black Liberation theology is relevant to black people of South Africa having a historical sense of being robbed by other countries.
https://www.google.com/search?q=allan+boesak+quotes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
If your starting point for understanding humanity is a racialist viewpoint, with superiority and inferiority projected onto people because of the color of their skin, then it's so easy to take the next step of justifying that point theologically and reading it into the Christian scripture. And that makes it harder to understand what scripture is actually saying!
