|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 10, 2021 21:05:56 GMT
Some radical sociopaths consider people to be just walking pieces of meat. Some bankers watch their clients as the walking wallets. Some barbies see men as another stylish things. Some taxi-drivers think people to be passengers. Some men think of women as the sex dolls. Some barbers don't see bald people. Some people don't consider another people as people...
So, how do you see people? Who are they for you? Which way of considering people is the most perfect and the more human? What one needs to do to avoid having any regrettable misconceptions of people?
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on May 11, 2021 4:25:34 GMT
Most people are scum needing extermination. The way I judge is simple. Do people make the world a better place or a worse place. Since most people are now serving the global elite, they make the world worse. A few decades ago things were very different. As far as I can tell, traditional Anabaptists are the only group of people left who don't deserve to be exterminated. And also a few freaks who can't be categorized.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP 
Elder
Posts: 2,694 
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on May 11, 2021 4:51:14 GMT
Other people for me are alien creatures that I do not understand and do not understand me in turn. I often feel like I've been born on the wrong planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by mainrain on Jun 11, 2021 10:38:45 GMT
To me, they are a necessary inconvenience. Though I'm generally disposed to dislike the human species, I do value kindness and humility. It is often a challenge to balance my distaste for other humans with my ethics of kindness and humility. But on good days, it's worth the effort; on bad days, I'm the biggest grump.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 11, 2021 14:23:23 GMT
To me, they are a necessary inconvenience. Though I'm generally disposed to dislike the human species, I do value kindness and humility. It is often a challenge to balance my distaste for other humans with my ethics of kindness and humility. But on good days, it's worth the effort; on bad days, I'm the biggest grump. In general, it depends, yes? I can't disagree with you: relationship as a challenge is something really intriguing and appealing. I guess only religious side of this question might be a barrier as to: messing round with jerks let your soul get hurt, or often meetings with good people make your soul "fly". |
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 11, 2021 18:46:24 GMT
Most people are scum needing extermination. The way I judge is simple. Do people make the world a better place or a worse place. Since most people are now serving the global elite, they make the world worse. A few decades ago things were very different. As far as I can tell, traditional Anabaptists are the only group of people left who don't deserve to be exterminated. And also a few freaks who can't be categorized. Eliminate Elitists
First, overthrow the vicious hissing snakes that now rule over people. Only then can you judge the rest; they have to be free to be all they can be, not the little that they are allowed to be. If you view the people as scum, that would justify the snakes' behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by mainrain on Jun 14, 2021 10:32:57 GMT
To me, they are a necessary inconvenience. Though I'm generally disposed to dislike the human species, I do value kindness and humility. It is often a challenge to balance my distaste for other humans with my ethics of kindness and humility. But on good days, it's worth the effort; on bad days, I'm the biggest grump. In general, it depends, yes? I can't disagree with you: relationship as a challenge is something really intriguing and appealing. I guess only religious side of this question might be a barrier as to: messing round with jerks let your soul get hurt, or often meetings with good people make your soul "fly". Yeah, the "religious compulsion" to be good at all costs seems untenable. Those who do practice "be good at all costs" also seem driven by the prospect of a rewarding afterlife. It is far from being a spiritual ethic or principle; just extreme self-interest, which, like you say is not really in one's interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 14, 2021 11:05:47 GMT
In general, it depends, yes? I can't disagree with you: relationship as a challenge is something really intriguing and appealing. I guess only religious side of this question might be a barrier as to: messing round with jerks let your soul get hurt, or often meetings with good people make your soul "fly". Yeah, the "religious compulsion" to be good at all costs seems untenable. Those who do practice "be good at all costs" also seem driven by the prospect of a rewarding afterlife. It is far from being a spiritual ethic or principle; just extreme self-interest, which, like you say is not really in one's interest. Ok, it's acceptable. Another thing is that the main alternative to this practicing for the reward is to sacrifice yourself: either dying, or living in eternal suffering. (This came from the four possible relations: a) Living eternally, and well; b) Living eternally, but not well; c) Living not eternally, while well; d) Living not eternally, and not well. And we can formalize it with maximums to its short definitions using "shortly" instead of "not eternally", and so on.) The Christian and some other religious eschatology supposes living good and well eternally. In other words, we may presume that the Christian way to get (a) is to get mainly (d). |
|
|
|
Post by mainrain on Jun 15, 2021 10:03:47 GMT
Yeah, the "religious compulsion" to be good at all costs seems untenable. Those who do practice "be good at all costs" also seem driven by the prospect of a rewarding afterlife. It is far from being a spiritual ethic or principle; just extreme self-interest, which, like you say is not really in one's interest. Ok, it's acceptable. Another thing is that the main alternative to this practicing for the reward is to sacrifice yourself: either dying, or living in eternal suffering. (This came from the four possible relations: a) Living eternally, and well; b) Living eternally, but not well; c) Living not eternally, while well; d) Living not eternally, and not well. And we can formalize it with maximums to its short definitions using "shortly" instead of "not eternally", and so on.) The Christian and some other religious eschatology supposes living good and well eternally. In other words, we may presume that the Christian way to get (a) is to get mainly (d).
This seems like a very apt summary. It also possibly explains the preference for suffering--sometimes the suffering is recommended by a religious/spiritual doctrine as an essential component if one is to live well. In other cases, the preference may be individual and masochistic. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 15, 2021 12:24:13 GMT
Ok, it's acceptable. Another thing is that the main alternative to this practicing for the reward is to sacrifice yourself: either dying, or living in eternal suffering. (This came from the four possible relations: a) Living eternally, and well; b) Living eternally, but not well; c) Living not eternally, while well; d) Living not eternally, and not well. And we can formalize it with maximums to its short definitions using "shortly" instead of "not eternally", and so on.) The Christian and some other religious eschatology supposes living good and well eternally. In other words, we may presume that the Christian way to get (a) is to get mainly (d).
This seems like a very apt summary. It also possibly explains the preference for suffering--sometimes the suffering is recommended by a religious/spiritual doctrine as an essential component if one is to live well. In other cases, the preference may be individual and masochistic. I agree, it's one of possible standard counterarguments to accepting suffering. There are also some key notation to it (firstly the question about masochistic): a) a person can deliberately choose to be a masochist b) a person might be unable to control some of one's functions (including of getting suffering & pain) c) a person may negate those pleasures which can occur during suffering practices: the person may struggle (to individualistic) d) a person can be a rational egoist: he presumes that saving himself he makes good for the otherss e) a person can have some social efforts to be unable to notify some special social functions (besides, the societies are different, and we can't say we are the ones which choose them for us to live) |
|
