And then also we have to distinguish between Government and individuals.
Government deciding when to confront a bad idea is a completely different mater from me confronting a bad idea, or a group of individuals confronting a bad idea.
Every day I walk by a Planned Parenthood clinic and every day there are people there challenging what they feel is a bad idea. I think we need more of that, actually. More people need to get some skin in the game and confront what they feel is a bad idea (nonviolently) and not just think “oh, everybody has their right to their own opinion”
And then also we have to distinguish between Government and individuals.
Do people have the “right” to incubate bad ideas without challenge?
What I’m doing is challenging the idea of “rights” altogether.
Let’s look at the whole idea of rights from the bottom up. What are rights? Who decides what is a right and what isn’t? Are rights actually inalienable, or is that just what some guys believed in a time when it was useful for society to believe it?
I’m not concerned with if an individual or group believes or disbelieves in rights as some kind of magical thing bestowed on some but not others arbitrarily.
You proposed the question … your answer, the same as the last time I tried to have a real conversation, is just circular reasoning and incoherent. What am I to learn from this comment?
This is why I said it’s like I’m talking to an Avitar. The only consistent thing I can infer from your endless writing is that you are an activist who hates Christians and Republicans and those you perceive as weak because they are positive and use the word love?
Read your own reply … does it really make any sense to you? Does it instruct any specific rational or reasonable position you hold? If so I can’t find it here … that’s why Love is the only positive contribution I can share with you.
Maybe if I ask again in another way you can find your own answers.
- Are there rights or not?
- Should we have rights or not?
If you are unable to answer these this may be genuine evidence of the very Cognitive Deterioration Pandemic you reference.
No - rights are not a “thing”. They cannot be touched, measured, etc. They only exist in the imagination. They are made up and mutually agreed on and constantly subject to changes as society mutually agrees, and these agreements are often disputed and not universal.
That’s my question. Specifically should people have the right to incubate bad ideas unchallenged
I’m sorry if you have a hard time following the discussion. But again, just recognize that as your shortcoming and maybe just deal with your own lack of ability to see outside of a specifically defined box as your shortcoming.
Of course people have this right to ideate unchallenged. But as soon as they look to have their ideas “adopted”, it opens their thinking up to the rigors of inspection - your challenge if you will.
But what if instead of “challenge” we could have collaborative discussions?
Less “evoke someone’s internal quadrant shadows”, but to co-generate ideas and thoughts?
“bad ideas” … who’s bad ideas? Who gets to say? Trump has many “bad ideas” or perhaps they are incubated among some as good ideas? What do you suggest we do with people’s thinking? I would suggest that an integral understanding of this simple topic would not require an in depth inquiry into others?
Perhaps when reading the book you referenced, where we can all clearly see and identify how this applies to everyone else. Maybe we could all take a slow deep look at our own views? That might be best in identifying where and how to heal ourselves and society too?
Sadly so few people actually think for themselves. Too many of us just accept our biases and confirm them into the very delusions and cognitive deterioration that flourishes today? If we can be humble enough to examine ourselves and challenge our own subjective views, perhaps we will see how these mind-viruses exist in our own thinking? It seems to me that would be a sound integral inquiry to contemplate, would you agree?
I think I already said … “challenge”.
Challenging people is actually healthy and a necessary part of coaching, development and improvement.
If a coach never challenges an athlete they won’t improve at the same pace as with a coach that challenges them. Whether it be athletics, “life coaching” or other.
It’s all well and good if people look internally, but I consider this a “pie in the sky” approach because people just don’t do it.
I think you make a good point here … most people are not integral in their thinking. My solution offers the suggestion of making personal changes with ourselves. Through our own thinking and understanding we gain greater clarity, rather than trying to influence others to conform to mine.
Yes, for me that is a given. Step #1
After that, there are other steps beyond step #1
If our political battles of ideals were challenged with swords should we use them against those who disagree with our thinking?
Nobody uses swords. What century are you from?
If you were using “sword” figuratively to include all violence - it’s necessary to break that down into specific types of violence.
Otherwise I have to guess what your meaning is.
Are you asking if we should engage in street fights every time our political ideas are challenged?
No, that would be absurd
Should we as a nation use nuclear weapons every time our political ideas as a nation are challenged?
No of course not - again absurd.
Am I a pacifist? No - so somewhere on the range between pacifism and absurdity “the sword” is an option. On the personal level those options are severely limited if nothing else because assault and murder carry extremely long prison sentences.
But even without that - the people who buy guns and shoot people over political ideologies probably do so because at some point in time nobody challenged their initial crazy idea and over the years bad idea after bad idea was allowed to grow unchallenged in them until ultimately they put their culminating bad into action - a mass killing.
And ultimately - yes, either the police or someone else had to use “the sword” to stop them from carrying out their ultimate bad idea further.
Since you suggest "No - that rights are not a “thing” … would those ready to challenge peoples thinking “bad ideas” have the right to do so?
I’m not interested in engaging in a circular philosophical debate ad nauseum. We are going through things I already said but I’m not sure if you don’t understand what I said or if you are intentionally refusing to recognize the meaning of the words I wrote.
Either way, it’s an exercise in futility to engage you further.
I saw a contradiction in your presentation so I asked a question to clarity that. Your response feels like a dodge but I’m okay if you want this conversation to be over … no pressure. ~ Peace
I already answered you several days ago. If a thing does not exist it cannot be a requirement before I make a decision.
Very Nihilist viewpoint.
Also logical. If aliens and sea monsters do not exist then I do not think about aliens or sea monsters before making decisions.
I just saw this and am very interested in this book and discussing it, Are you doing it online, and is it possible to still be involved? I think this is a very important topic,