Does evil exist?

[why me]

Over at the 'Weak belief in God' thread both bigeddy and aether claim that evil does not exist. For example: bigeddy claimed. "There is no evil!" and aether stated: "I don't believe in evil". This presented me with a question: Does evil exist? For me, there is evil and there is good but how to explain good and evil and give these words definitions and meanings? I went to a dictionary of philosophy and got an interesting insight into the nature of evil. This is in 'Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter A. Angleles.

Evil. That which is injurious, painful, hurtful or calmitous. 2. Morally bad or anacceptable. Sinful. Wicked. Vicious. Corrupt. 3. That which impedes the achievement of goals, ideals, happiness,or general well-being.

Evil, moral. Evil that is the result of deliberate human action.

Evil, natural. Evil that is the result of usual or unusual natural occurrences. Example: diseases, famines, drought etc.

Evil, theological problem of. ...stems from assuming three things, only two of which are compatible: (a) the omnipotence of God (b) the omnibenevolence of God (c) the existence of evil

From a philosophical point of view Epicurus presented the problem this way:
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able to prevent evil? Then, he is not omnipotent.
2. Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing to prevent evil? Then, He is not omnibenevolent.
3. Is God both willing and able to prevent evil? Then, why does evil exist?

Hume stated it this way:
1. If evil in the world is the intention of the Diety, then, he is not benevolent.
2. If evil in the world is contrary to His intention, then, He is not omnipotent
3. But evil is either in accordance with His intention or contrary to it. Therefore, either the Diety is not benevolent, or He is not omnipotent.

The above was from 'Dictionary of Philosophy' by Peter A. Angeles 1981, Barnes and Noble Books.

I began this with a question: Does evil exist? I say yes, especially in its moral form. I cannot seem to adjust my senses nor my mind to moral evil as defined above. Why would people create an evil act that harms life? What is behind this form of evil? Who is behind it? I know that we are not perfect but where does evil come from? ...the human mind...satan...? The philosophers seem to tackle the nature of God and His relationship to evil quite well from a philosophy of man viewpoint...but are there other viewpoints to discuss?

The question of why god allows evil has been addressed by the LDS church and I think that we know the reasons. To my mind, it is too test us and to give us the opportunity to choose the right or the wrong. I know that this is simple but I am not a scripturetorian. But for bigeddy and aether to say that evil does not exist needs some explanation...What do you guys mean when you state that there is no evil? Is to deny the existence of evil, a denial of the act of evil itself and thereby, a denial of 'good'? I am curious because being an amature philosopher I want to be 'radical' and get to the root of your statements but I would also like to have other posters comment about evil and their conception ot evil.

Oh...I am not upset with bigeddy and aether but just being curious with bigeddy and aether. :) And aether, your ex-boyfriend was an idiot :mad: ...by you questioning the existence the evil only shows that you are a philosopher who honors the socratic method of inquiry... :)

"As long as space endures,
as long as sentient beings remain,
Until then, may I too remain
And dispell the miseries of the world".

A Buddist teacher

[bigeddy]

Why me ended his post with this from a Buddhist monk:

Until then, may I too remain
And dispell the miseries of the world.

My stand on the philosophical question of evil has much to do with this. There is no denying that harmful things, illegal things, obstructive things, etc. do indeed exist. So, if we are talking about the denotation of the word with those things as a definition of evil, then, evil does exist by definition. But I am concerned about the conotation of the word and its effects on cumulative misery.

From the standpoint of the philosophical debate about evil it involves a tacit notion of a benevolent god. Look at the quotation Why me supplied from a philosophical dictionary; it is wrapped fully around the god notion, particularly a theistic god notion. So, immediately the idea of morality is also included. When morality enters then we also must consider intention. As soon as intention enters we also have the imputation of sin by one person (or collective) upon another. This brings in misery. I have felt the imputation of sin, wickedness, harsh judgement, etc. by those who do not know my intentions or motives. When this use of the concept of evil is allowed it is used by people to malign the humanity of another human and it is often used as a way to escape the burden of wisdom.

An example: I may behold the behavior of another human and in my efforts to comprehend the nature of his behavior I may not want to do the work of wisdom. Which, to me, is to understand the underlying aspects of the behavior (I might add--no I will add--that when I do this I tend to find a consistency of motive and humanity). In my efforts to avoid the work of true understanding (in compasion) I just chalk it up to "evil". He is an evil person. I thus malign the person and lack a true understanding of his humanity. It becomes the easy way out of the burden of wisdom and compassion. So, I reject the notion of a moral evil.

If I reject moral evil while beholding the hurtful behavior of another I then must look deeper. In my experience I have never encountered an evil person, nor an evil motive. I have encountered hurtful motives, narcisistic motives, protective motives, and etc. But to use the term evil introduces a "devil"-type escape. I avoid true wisdom and compassion in seeing deeper into the person's intentions and motives. If I look deeper I see a wounded human, an unevolved human (a child in a man's body), a scared human, etc. I do not find an evil human. The term when applied to people does nothing to foster growth toward wisdom.

So, I choose to not use the word because of its conotations. I will speak of illegal behaviors, hurtful behaviors, etc. I find these terms to be much more accurate and descriptive than the term evil. Use of the term evil puts me square in the middle of polarized approaches to complex issues and with that paradigmatic approach I cannot solve problems.

I worked with gang kids from Chicago. It would be easy to chalk their behavior up to evil. "They are evil people." I have seen scores of so-called compassionate people reduce their humanity in this way. To do so, in my experience, gets in the way of solving problems and promotes the fundamental attribution error.

There may be people so narcisistic, so entrenched in their own dysfunction that they cease to ever have compassionate motives or concerns. There may be such people, I have never met one.

Ed

[aether]

Good question, Why Me.. I always love this topic. Things like this are always so deliciously ambiguous.

Evil. That which is injurious, painful, hurtful or calmitous. 2. Morally bad or anacceptable. Sinful. Wicked. Vicious. Corrupt. 3. That which impedes the achievement of goals, ideals, happiness,or general well-being.

See.. this is my problem, and I think it's even more foundational to the individual question of "is there evil." If evil is something morally bad or unacceptable.. what is morally bad or unacceptable? Causing someone else pain? Doctors do that all the time, and I don't think they'd be called evil (in general). Murder? This is a good one.. but really, we have no idea of this "precious" value of human life. How do I know that I'm not doing someone a favor by killing them? The existence after death may or may not be better than life on Earth. I'm not saying murder is good.. I'm just saying there's absolutely no way to know. How about dishonesty? Well, I'm pretty sure Ed would definitely see that as not an evil thing. Dishonesty can be good, in certain situations (one that a close friend of mine uses is that people were dishonest to Nazi's so that they could keep the Jews in hiding during the Holocaust. Evil? I think not.)

I think the real problem with this definition of evil is that it is way too black and white. Everything involving an "evil" act that must be taken into account changes all the time: motive, passion, intent, and especially moral beliefs. If a samurai thinks he's granting a friend eternal happiness if he helps his friend commit seppuku, is he evil?

Evil, natural. Evil that is the result of usual or unusual natural occurrences. Example: diseases, famines, drought etc.

I don't think this is the "evil" that's in question here. There's no way diseases, famines, and drought can be inherently evil, if it's a moral issue.


Why would people create an evil act that harms life? What is behind this form of evil? Who is behind it? I know that we are not perfect but where does evil come from? ...the human mind...satan...?

I answer with other questions: Why is harming life evil? Why must there be someone or something "behind" it? People are so afraid to admit that "evil" as they know it might come from themselves, rather than Satan or any demon.

But for bigeddy and aether to say that evil does not exist needs some explanation...What do you guys mean when you state that there is no evil? Is to deny the existence of evil, a denial of the act of evil itself and thereby, a denial of 'good'? I am curious because being an amature philosopher I want to be 'radical' and get to the root of your statements but I would also like to have other posters comment about evil and their conception ot evil.

I think people in general make huge assumptions: that we know what evil is, that evil does not change, and that "evil" is an entity all its own. I resist the idea that it is an absolute. There are ideas in philosophy of the perfect concept of things: like there is an ideal blue, an ideal flower, an ideal human being, an ideal math concept, and that these things don't exist in the physical world but they do exist as a concept. (I think it might have been Plato who started this theory) If this idea of ideals is true (and I believe it is, for mathematics) then I don't see how evil could be one of them. Because really the definition of evil changes over the years.. it seems to go in circles, actually. We haven't gotten any closer to finding an answer. Evil is just not concrete enough, and for me that means it only exists in people's heads; because evil becomes easier to avoid if you can see it as something concrete. In Mormonism it is embodied as the devil - which is perfect, if you want black and white. But I don't believe there is a devil. I don't even know if I believe in morals any farther than as tools to live in society together. It seems to make sense that if I don't believe in evil, I don't believe in good either.. and the simple side of myself, the one craving black and white, still wants to believe in good. But again.. it's just too ambiguous. I can't even begin to state where good begins and ends. I believe in happiness and sadness... I believe in constructive and destructive.. I believe in valuable and worthless... but not good and evil.

[free thinker]

So, I choose to not use the word because of its conotations. I will speak of illegal behaviors, hurtful behaviors, etc. I find these terms to be much more accurate and descriptive than the term evil. Use of the term evil puts me square in the middle of polarized approaches to complex issues and with that paradigmatic approach I cannot solve problems.


Thoreou said , and I am paraphrasing, "for every thousand people hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one hacking at the roots". My gut tells me that the above approach to solving problems is getting to the roots.

My father always has, over the years, tried to help me be less judgemental. I see now that he has been correct. I do not know if evil is real, but I am pretty sure that if you label someone as evil, you will be one step farther away from trying to help them discontinue their "evil" behavior.

Free Thinker

[nate]

I believe that it boils down to something very simple, and Ed's excellent post fits it very well.

Rather than Good and Evil, I think that there is Balance, and Imbalance. If you wish to call imbalance evil, and balance good, so be it.

Nate

[why me]

Over at the 'Weak belief in God' thread both bigeddy and aether claim that evil does not exist. For example: bigeddy claimed. "There is no evil!" and aether stated: "I don't believe in evil". This presented me with a question: Does evil exist? For me, there is evil and there is good but how to explain good and evil and give these words definitions and meanings? I went to a dictionary of philosophy and got an interesting insight into the nature of evil. This is in 'Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter A. Angleles.

Evil. That which is injurious, painful, hurtful or calmitous. 2. Morally bad or anacceptable. Sinful. Wicked. Vicious. Corrupt. 3. That which impedes the achievement of goals, ideals, happiness,or general well-being.

Evil, moral. Evil that is the result of deliberate human action.

Evil, natural. Evil that is the result of usual or unusual natural occurrences. Example: diseases, famines, drought etc.

Evil, theological problem of. ...stems from assuming three things, only two of which are compatible: (a) the omnipotence of God (b) the omnibenevolence of God (c) the existence of evil

From a philosophical point of view Epicurus presented the problem this way:
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able to prevent evil? Then, he is not omnipotent.
2. Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing to prevent evil? Then, He is not omnibenevolent.
3. Is God both willing and able to prevent evil? Then, why does evil exist?

Hume stated it this way:
1. If evil in the world is the intention of the Diety, then, he is not benevolent.
2. If evil in the world is contrary to His intention, then, He is not omnipotent
3. But evil is either in accordance with His intention or contrary to it. Therefore, either the Diety is not benevolent, or He is not omnipotent.

The above was from 'Dictionary of Philosophy' by Peter A. Angeles 1981, Barnes and Noble Books.

I began this with a question: Does evil exist? I say yes, especially in its moral form. I cannot seem to adjust my senses nor my mind to moral evil as defined above. Why would people create an evil act that harms life? What is behind this form of evil? Who is behind it? I know that we are not perfect but where does evil come from? ...the human mind...satan...? The philosophers seem to tackle the nature of God and His relationship to evil quite well from a philosophy of man viewpoint...but are there other viewpoints to discuss?

The question of why god allows evil has been addressed by the LDS church and I think that we know the reasons. To my mind, it is too test us and to give us the opportunity to choose the right or the wrong. I know that this is simple but I am not a scripturetorian. But for bigeddy and aether to say that evil does not exist needs some explanation...What do you guys mean when you state that there is no evil? Is to deny the existence of evil, a denial of the act of evil itself and thereby, a denial of 'good'? I am curious because being an amature philosopher I want to be 'radical' and get to the root of your statements but I would also like to have other posters comment about evil and their conception ot evil.

Oh...I am not upset with bigeddy and aether but just being curious with bigeddy and aether. :) And aether, your ex-boyfriend was an idiot :mad: ...by you questioning the existence the evil only shows that you are a philosopher who honors the socratic method of inquiry... :)

"As long as space endures,
as long as sentient beings remain,
Until then, may I too remain
And dispell the miseries of the world".

A Buddist teacher


When I wrote "To my mind" in my original text, I did not mean my own opinion; rather, I meant the church's reasoning...sorry if there could have been a misunderstanding...

[miss taken]

Over here, we had a killer by the name of Peter Sutcliffe.

He was an interesting case. He strongly felt that a 'force' of some kind was telling him to kill prostitutes. I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that Charles Manson had the same kind of reasoning.

I use these examples, because they show that we can take a belief in the 'devil' to the extreme, (as with a belief in God) and it can completely mess up our value system and our ability to take responsibility for what we do.

Peter Sutcliffe might say, oh Satan made me do it, and thus he blames someone else for his own despicable acts.

I prefer a system where we all take inherent responsibility for what we do, and for our own choices and actions.

I think that Good and evil, then, can be misused by believers, and it can reduce them to puppets merely serving their masters will, rather than individuals who are willing to take full responsibility for their own acts.

I agree with Aether that often the definition is too black and white and there is a big middle ground to consider.

Just on a personal note, I find it interesting that while I was active in the church, I was plagued by an irrational fear of the devil and this for me was mostly attached to sex. As a hormonal 20 year old, if I let my mind wander, I would attach my thoughts to the devil. The times I woke up in a cold sweat thinking the devil was right next to me are nobodies business.

Interestingly, when I left the church I stopped feeling that the devil was on my case all the time. A church member, I know, would say that the devil has got me now, so he doesn't have to work on me so hard.

I just know that when I was a teenager and growing up in the church, the devil was a real and malicious entity who was on my case all, ALL the time.

I was a very troubled youth, who had a fierce imagination.

Mary

[taruleo]

Peter Sutcliffe might say, oh Satan made me do it, and thus he blames someone else for his own despicable acts.

I prefer a system where we all take inherent responsibility for what we do, and for our own choices and actions.


Mary
Hi, new poster here. Whether people do it knowingly or not, I have found that many people use evil and the devil as a scapegoat and as a way to check out of being responsible for themselves. I am not just talking about the big "sins". My own mother talks about satan all the time and how he is working hard on her. Basically she is having a bad day and since it is wrong not to be happy she blames it on satan. This is a very simple example but it happens all the time in a multitude of ways. I have also heard people talk about how satan wants to break up the family and if their marriage is not doing well, it must be that the other person is allowing satan to influence them. Instead of taking responsibility for what they have done to create this situation they get to blame the other person and the EVIL SATAN :mad: ! Convenient really.

I also prefer a responsible belief system. I remember as a child I always wished that Satan was behind my actions as he seemed to be for others. Then I wouldn't be so bad. I always knew I was behind everything.

[why me]

Hi, new poster here. Whether people do it knowingly or not, I have found that many people use evil and the devil as a scapegoat and as a way to check out of being responsible for themselves. I am not just talking about the big "sins". My own mother talks about satan all the time and how he is working hard on her. Basically she is having a bad day and since it is wrong not to be happy she blames it on satan. This is a very simple example but it happens all the time in a multitude of ways. I have also heard people talk about how satan wants to break up the family and if their marriage is not doing well, it must be that the other person is allowing satan to influence them. Instead of taking responsibility for what they have done to create this situation they get to blame the other person and the EVIL SATAN :mad: ! Convenient really.

I also prefer a responsible belief system. I remember as a child I always wished that Satan was behind my actions as he seemed to be for others. Then I wouldn't be so bad. I always knew I was behind everything.


I will be given my take on evil a little later but right now I want to welcome you to the forum. :) It would be nice to know more about you if you feel comfortable in telling us something about yourself. But for now...welcome to the forum and keep posting. I know what you mean by satan and that he is behind everything comment. I just heard that today also. More about my take on evil later... :)

[Born Free]

I thought Ed's response on this was powerful.

Dancing with the theoretical notion of "Evil" is about as useful as speaking about "Love" whilst failing to ever define the notion in any behavoural examples.

There are a few areas that continue to grasp my attention.

One of them was the target by M Scot Peck in his People of the Lie; namely the capacity for humans within organisations to abrogate responsibility for behaviour that they would unambigously label unacceptable on an individual basis.

Yes, we could simply apply some socio-psychological label to such behaviour or cluster of behaviours, but to me that misses something useful.

There is another phenomenon that more easily attracts the lable "evil". I am reminded of a psychologist friend's description of his experience of a woman he had to interview when she was first incarcerated for what came to be labelled the "lesbian vampire killings". This woman had led a few other women, all under the influence of drugs, in a series of ritualistic slayings of animals, and the behaviour escelated to luring a drunk on the offer of sex to a secluded spot where they cut his throat and then drank his blood in some form of ritual. He described an air about her that stood the hairs up on the back of his neck, when he conducted the interview. This is a man not prone to fanciful flights of the imagination.

What are we to make of such an experience?

Traditionally, our Christain culture has this notion that evil is some atmosphere created by Christ's nemesis - Satan. This notion is that Satan is a being (of some sort) out there in some reality, who possesses some supernatural power to persuade us to engage in certain behaviours. This would have us believe that we are somehow resistant or permissive of this Force exerting influence upon us. Of course many religions promote the ideas that they have some monopoly on Satan repellent.

I want to propose another explanation for what we might be experiencing in the presence of those traditionally labelled as 'evil'.

As a person embraces certain patterns of thinking and behaviour, they start to have a certain resonance with that. (I am aware, for instance, that ALL serial killers in one cluster the US, whose background were extensively researched in one study, had frontal lobe damage from birth, or childhood accident or violence. The effect of this was that the uniquily human part of the brain is impaired in its function. Many had also been exposed to traumatic childhood abuse.) Such resultant behaviours might include, but not be limited to: acute insensitivity to others needs and experience, a refusal to be accountable, a contentment, even delight, in seeing pain and distress inflicted upon others, as a maladaptive coping response to their own early trauma.

Is it possible that we humans come equipped with a capacity (which we can refine or reject and suppress) to sense that such people are a threat to our individual and community safety, and to have acute defence mechanisms activated? This might exist in many or multiple levels: mental, sensory, etc..

If this were the case, the 'evil' we sense is actually 'life' threatening potentiality that is inherent in the person or their habituated behavioural patterns, which stands in marked contrast to some external 'force' which attaches itself to people?

Back to the notion of organisational structures potential for 'evil', which does hold some attraction for me. If we were to acknowledge that certain: sizes of organisation, management, reporting and accountability principles are conducive to abuse, then we might be more proactive in preventing such.

That said, use of the visceral label 'evil' tends to encourage mindless, less skillful responses, which could even add to the problem. By being able to list the elements and combination of elements of such organisations, we equip ourselves to identify earlier when organisations are heading in an unhealthy direction.

Which brings me to a problem. We just had our prime Sunday morning TV program on free-to-air TV here do a follow-up story on sexual abuse and cover-up within the Jehovah Witness church in Australia.

If there is anything that temps me to use the lable 'evil' it is to describe organisations who, upon discovering abuse of minors in their midst, not only fail to address the issue, but further punish the victims, whilst rapidly reembracing their offending male members.

Interestingly, as in Mormonism, this Churchs cynical, uncomfortable relationship with the mental sciences seems to be a major contributing factor.

All of the above begs the question of what many religions and the people attracted to them, define as 'evil'. I commonly experience much inability and resistance to being pegged down on the meaning of such words within those settings. It is as if there is a certain ability to maximise fear and paranoia (and therefore control) by being vague and imprecise, by painting this 'force' as permanent and pervasive. Which behaviour gets a bit close to one of my definitions of ....... (de, da, der, dum!)

Daryl

[helemon]

From a philosophical point of view Epicurus presented the problem this way:
1. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able to prevent evil? Then, he is not omnipotent.
2. Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing to prevent evil? Then, He is not omnibenevolent.
3. Is God both willing and able to prevent evil? Then, why does evil exist?

Hume stated it this way:
1. If evil in the world is the intention of the Diety, then, he is not benevolent.
2. If evil in the world is contrary to His intention, then, He is not omnipotent
3. But evil is either in accordance with His intention or contrary to it. Therefore, either the Diety is not benevolent, or He is not omnipotent.

From a religious perspective the logic of both of these men is flawed.

Both of these men forget that life's short. Gods focus is on eternity not mortality. If God were to destroy "evil" he would at the same time destroy free will. The primary purpose of life is to see how people will behave. Before we criticize God's benevolence, omnipotence we must stand in his position and be able to see the end from the beginning.

From a mortal perspective, would it be a benevolent father who prevents his child from ever experiencing pain? If there was no pain or suffering in the world there could be no joy and healing. Without hardship we would be less likely to rely on each other or reach out for the inspiration and guidance of a higher power.

As the buddhist monk proclaims it is our job in mortality to strive to dispell misery. Furthermore if we view ourselves as reflections of God then when we ask the question "Why is there evil in the world?" We need only to look in the mirror for the answer and ponder what we are doing either to create or dispell misery.

[miss taken]

I thought Ed's response on this was powerful.

Dancing with the theoretical notion of "Evil" is about as useful as speaking about "Love" whilst failing to ever define the notion in any behavoural examples.

There are a few areas that continue to grasp my attention.

One of them was the target by M Scot Peck in his People of the Lie; namely the capacity for humans within organisations to abrogate responsibility for behaviour that they would unambigously label unacceptable on an individual basis.

Yes, we could simply apply some socio-psychological label to such behaviour or cluster of behaviours, but to me that misses something useful.

There is another phenomenon that more easily attracts the lable "evil". I am reminded of a psychologist friend's description of his experience of a woman he had to interview when she was first incarcerated for what came to be labelled the "lesbian vampire killings". This woman had led a few other women, all under the influence of drugs, in a series of ritualistic slayings of animals, and the behaviour escelated to luring a drunk on the offer of sex to a secluded spot where they cut his throat and then drank his blood in some form of ritual. He described an air about her that stood the hairs up on the back of his neck, when he conducted the interview. This is a man not prone to fanciful flights of the imagination.

What are we to make of such an experience?

Traditionally, our Christain culture has this notion that evil is some atmosphere created by Christ's nemesis - Satan. This notion is that Satan is a being (of some sort) out there in some reality, who possesses some supernatural power to persuade us to engage in certain behaviours. This would have us believe that we are somehow resistant or permissive of this Force exerting influence upon us. Of course many religions promote the ideas that they have some monopoly on Satan repellent.

I want to propose another explanation for what we might be experiencing in the presence of those traditionally labelled as 'evil'.

As a person embraces certain patterns of thinking and behaviour, they start to have a certain resonance with that. (I am aware, for instance, that ALL serial killers in one cluster the US, whose background were extensively researched in one study, had frontal lobe damage from birth, or childhood accident or violence. The effect of this was that the uniquily human part of the brain is impaired in its function. Many had also been exposed to traumatic childhood abuse.) Such resultant behaviours might include, but not be limited to: acute insensitivity to others needs and experience, a refusal to be accountable, a contentment, even delight, in seeing pain and distress inflicted upon others, as a maladaptive coping response to their own early trauma.

Is it possible that we humans come equipped with a capacity (which we can refine or reject and suppress) to sense that such people are a threat to our individual and community safety, and to have acute defence mechanisms activated? This might exist in many or multiple levels: mental, sensory, etc..

If this were the case, the 'evil' we sense is actually 'life' threatening potentiality that is inherent in the person or their habituated behavioural patterns, which stands in marked contrast to some external 'force' which attaches itself to people?

Back to the notion of organisational structures potential for 'evil', which does hold some attraction for me. If we were to acknowledge that certain: sizes of organisation, management, reporting and accountability principles are conducive to abuse, then we might be more proactive in preventing such.

That said, use of the visceral label 'evil' tends to encourage mindless, less skillful responses, which could even add to the problem. By being able to list the elements and combination of elements of such organisations, we equip ourselves to identify earlier when organisations are heading in an unhealthy direction.

Which brings me to a problem. We just had our prime Sunday morning TV program on free-to-air TV here do a follow-up story on sexual abuse and cover-up within the Jehovah Witness church in Australia.

If there is anything that temps me to use the lable 'evil' it is to describe organisations who, upon discovering abuse of minors in their midst, not only fail to address the issue, but further punish the victims, whilst rapidly reembracing their offending male members.

Interestingly, as in Mormonism, this Churchs cynical, uncomfortable relationship with the mental sciences seems to be a major contributing factor.

All of the above begs the question of what many religions and the people attracted to them, define as 'evil'. I commonly experience much inability and resistance to being pegged down on the meaning of such words within those settings. It is as if there is a certain ability to maximise fear and paranoia (and therefore control) by being vague and imprecise, by painting this 'force' as permanent and pervasive. Which behaviour gets a bit close to one of my definitions of ....... (de, da, der, dum!)

Daryl

Daryl, I hope you don't mind... I feel very uncomfortable with your explanations behind serial killers actions.

I just feel that sometimes, we want to make them different. Give a reason for why they do it. When perhaps all of us (as in Nazi Germany) have the capacity to do really bad things. All of us. To a great extent imo it is a matter of choice.

I would say, fine, so some killers have frontal lobe damage, (what you describe sounds like autism/asperger) and some may have had traumatic childhoods. But this begs the question as to why then do not all individuals who have frontal lobe damage and traumatic childhoods become serial killers, which they clearly and unequivacably? do not....

Einstein, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, (http://www.geocities.com/richardg_uk/famousac.html) and a host of others were severely impaired in social functioning to the point of being retrospectively labelled with autism, but they did and do not become serial killers.

Mary

[Born Free]

Daryl, I hope you don't mind... I feel very uncomfortable with your explanations behind serial killers actions.

I just feel that sometimes, we want to make them different. Give a reason for why they do it. When perhaps all of us (as in Nazi Germany) have the capacity to do really bad things. All of us. To a great extent imo it is a matter of choice.

<snip>

Mary
Mary,

How do you figure that works? One morning they get out of bed and say, will I have a cup of coffee this morning or kill someone, to elevate my mood?

You bundle two quite disparate scenarios into this example: solo killers, and people who switch off their conscience and find it easy to justify following orders within a system.

The commonly held myth is that we all don't feel a level of anger, or vengence towards those who threaten us or hurt us. As I have gotten older (54 last birthday), I have progressively come to realise I have a frightening potential, and I do not have brain damage (that I am aware of). I was recently in a context with a man who whilst driving many decades ago when he was a young man, under the influence of alcohol, hit and killed a pedestrian. Now, you would not find a more socially active, honest, moral citizen than this guy. As I listened to his story I was once again reminded how easily we figure that some great line separates us from people who do tragic things. I know dozens of men, who as young men could very easily have been where this man had been.

The science I have read suggests that those who act in extremely anti-social ways are in a different group in that they have:

Extreme reason to feel agrieved, and have abnormal attitudes and arousal states based upon trauma, PLUS

They have severely impaired impulse control (we are talking here of measurable damage to brain cells).

The people who you cited were 'merely' insensitive to people's needs or indifferent towards social settings and blind to the nuances most of us read. One of your countrymen - a Professor Baron-Cohen of Cambridge has argued that what they have is the results of higher levels of testosterone on the feotal brain. They do not have brain damage.

The pathological have serious trauma that has created high emotional states or propulsion if you like, plus the absence of brakes. In many cases, add alcohol or drugs and what impulse control they possess is further diminished. Of course their traumatic background usually increases their liklihood of substance abuse.

In many cases they have also rehearsed/fantisized scenarios repetitiously as a way of coping with their feelings of extreme powerlessness. In many cases they fantisize so much that the boundary between their fantasy and the real world gets blurred. Again drugs compound the problem.

Am I excusing them? In no way. Indeed, many of these people (the majority are male) could be identified by testing at about puberty, but that raises a complex civil liberties issue. But for the most part, that is the best model science has to offer as to what goes on. Of course in recent years we have MRI so we can see how their brains respond to various stimuli compared to "normal' folks.

Whether I like it or not, whether it fits with my model of how the world 'should' work, I figure is a luxury. So given the choice between hoping reality will get in alignment with my fantasy or getting my beliefs in alignment with 'reality', I find the latter works best.

If you want a laymans introduction to what the latest science says about how much 'agency' we really have, I strongly recommend reading Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate. It is a sizable book, but well worth the read. In it you will find he claims two groups have a resistance to what the latest science is offering: fundamental Christians and some socialists. They reject the science for two quite different reasons which I will not attempt to summarise here.

Hey, thanks for expressing your discomfort. I would like to think that when you have read as much on the issue as I have, you might hold an opinion somewhat closer to mine than the one you appear to currently hold.

Daryl

[aether]

Dancing with the theoretical notion of "Evil" is about as useful as speaking about "Love" whilst failing to ever define the notion in any behavoural examples.


Well thank you, Daryl, thank you so much. In one sentence you dissolved my entire opinion as being useless. *sigh*

You know what, I don't have any behavioural examples of evil. I don't know any even remotely wicked people. The worst anyone ever gets around me is admitting that they might smoke marijuana. So right now, theory is all I have, and it guides my beliefs. I have no right to guess motives or even actual reality behind stories I hear of strange people in far-off places. So please, forgive my ignorance.

[dancinfree]

I would like to think that when you have read as much on the issue as I have, you might hold an opinion somewhat closer to mine than the one you appear to currently hold.

Daryl

Well, Born Free, I would like to think that when you have read as much on the issue of the LDS church, you might hold an opinion somewhat closer to mine than the one you appear to currently hold and you would embrace full membership with flying colors!!

How does that sound to you?

[why me]

Well, Born Free, I would like to think that when you have read as much on the issue of the LDS church, you might hold an opinion somewhat closer to mine than the one you appear to currently hold and you would embrace full membership with flying colors!!

How does that sound to you?

Oh, oh, Born Free is in the dog house now. Good luck Born Free. I am glad that I am not in your shoes. :p But that being said I have to say that I am sick and tired of evil. Now let me explain. I know that evil exists. I believe that evil exists. I cannot cover up the use of the word evil. Evil is what evil does. For example: a brutal murder is evil and if the victim was a child...that is even more of an evil. Evil things happen in this world and a spade needs to be called a spade. This will help keep our sanity because if the word no longer exists I think our sanity will disappear. How else should we call an act that is atrocious and dispictable? However, I am tired of the evil feeling that I have about myself. It is not severe but I know that I am not leaving all the commandments but I do try to be a decent person to others. Perhaps I harm myself but I try my best not to harm others. But if I don't live all the commandments...am I evil? Am I an evil person? This is the point that I don't like. I don't like this devil thing...that every time I think a wrong thought or do a wrong thing...I have the devil inside me tempting me etc. I think that many members have felt this way. I want to see a god of love and not a god of vengence. But I truly believe that evil happens and if we gloss over evil...we will no longer be sensitive to evil. We will reach a post-evil stage even though there is still evil outside our daily lives. Lets smile even though it is raining outside my window... :)

[aether]

However, I am tired of the evil feeling that I have about myself. It is not severe but I know that I am not leaving all the commandments but I do try to be a decent person to others. Perhaps I harm myself but I try my best not to harm others. But if I don't live all the commandments...am I evil? Am I an evil person?

Why Me, I find this rather saddening. You are on the post-mormon forums, and yet you still feel like you must obey all the the church's commandments? Why do you feel that you have to jump through hoops to be a good person? Honestly, take a look at yourself and those around you. Can you truly say that you're doing so many things wrong?

That's part of why the church didn't work for me.. they told me that if I didn't do all these things A B and C that I wasn't a good person.. but I never, ever felt that I was doing something wrong or that I needed to change who I was to make them happy. But I've seen that guilt working on other people and it makes me sad. You say that someone who brutally murders a child is evil.. and then ask if you're evil, although (I'm assuming) you've done nothing like this ever. How can you even consider such a thought? You have a good heart and you're aware of yourself and your actions. Do you ask anything more of others? And if not.. why ask more of yourself? How can you even be remotely evil? Why guilt yourself into thinking you're a bad person? I think you're perfect the way you are.

[miss taken]

Mary,

How do you figure that works? One morning they get out of bed and say, will I have a cup of coffee this morning or kill someone, to elevate my mood?

You bundle two quite disparate scenarios into this example: solo killers, and people who switch off their conscience and find it easy to justify following orders within a system.

The commonly held myth is that we all don't feel a level of anger, or vengence towards those who threaten us or hurt us. As I have gotten older (54 last birthday), I have progressively come to realise I have a frightening potential, and I do not have brain damage (that I am aware of). I was recently in a context with a man who whilst driving many decades ago when he was a young man, under the influence of alcohol, hit and killed a pedestrian. Now, you would not find a more socially active, honest, moral citizen than this guy. As I listened to his story I was once again reminded how easily we figure that some great line separates us from people who do tragic things. I know dozens of men, who as young men could very easily have been where this man had been.

The science I have read suggests that those who act in extremely anti-social ways are in a different group in that they have:

Extreme reason to feel agrieved, and have abnormal attitudes and arousal states based upon trauma, PLUS

They have severely impaired impulse control (we are talking here of measurable damage to brain cells).

The people who you cited were 'merely' insensitive to people's needs or indifferent towards social settings and blind to the nuances most of us read. One of your countrymen - a Professor Baron-Cohen of Cambridge has argued that what they have is the results of higher levels of testosterone on the feotal brain. They do not have brain damage.

The pathological have serious trauma that has created high emotional states or propulsion if you like, plus the absence of brakes. In many cases, add alcohol or drugs and what impulse control they possess is further diminished. Of course their traumatic background usually increases their liklihood of substance abuse.

In many cases they have also rehearsed/fantisized scenarios repetitiously as a way of coping with their feelings of extreme powerlessness. In many cases they fantisize so much that the boundary between their fantasy and the real world gets blurred. Again drugs compound the problem.

Am I excusing them? In no way. Indeed, many of these people (the majority are male) could be identified by testing at about puberty, but that raises a complex civil liberties issue. But for the most part, that is the best model science has to offer as to what goes on. Of course in recent years we have MRI so we can see how their brains respond to various stimuli compared to "normal' folks.

Whether I like it or not, whether it fits with my model of how the world 'should' work, I figure is a luxury. So given the choice between hoping reality will get in alignment with my fantasy or getting my beliefs in alignment with 'reality', I find the latter works best.

If you want a laymans introduction to what the latest science says about how much 'agency' we really have, I strongly recommend reading Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate. It is a sizable book, but well worth the read. In it you will find he claims two groups have a resistance to what the latest science is offering: fundamental Christians and some socialists. They reject the science for two quite different reasons which I will not attempt to summarise here.

Hey, thanks for expressing your discomfort. I would like to think that when you have read as much on the issue as I have, you might hold an opinion somewhat closer to mine than the one you appear to currently hold.

Daryl

But unless I am misreading you, you still do not account for the people who have the same pathology as serial killers, but who do not become killers... Where are the statistics for people who fit the profile but do not go on to deviant behaviour?

Daryl, on a side note, I have spent 3 years in a masters programme studying the development of human beings, and the 'science' suggests that there are at least 4 main theories for the development of human behaviour, not just one... (as I am sure you are aware)

Mary

[bigeddy]

Why me,

Perhaps and maybe you are living the very reason we grow beyond the polarized stage. Since you are becoming aware of the way it does not work, you are in a very good place. In that stage everything is cast in polar terms; good/evil, black/white, good/bad, inside/outside, etc. When we are bound by that world view we cannot make the subtle needed discriminations within any one category.

You asked:

How else should we call an act that is atrocious and dispictable?

How about if we just call them atrocious and despicable? Why do we need any other broad category. These words are more precise and will aid in further understanding instead of getting in the way. It gets in the way to use the terms good/evil because we only have one or the other. If my behavior cannot be deemed "good" then it must be evil. Perhaps a person's behavior is neither "good" nor "evil" but evolving. Perhaps the person must behave in accordance with one thing she is feeling in order to learn from it. If so, is it then evil if learning is accomplished? To not learn from it would describe something that we could say was atrocious. If learned from it was an act of growing.

To get out of the polar stage we have to face the inadequacies of polarized thinking. I think you are doing that. To lump yourself as evil because in opposition to "good" there is no other term, is to be inaccurate. What if we did away with polarized terms; good/bad, right/wrong, black/white, etc.? Would we be hindered or benefitted, or something else that is not bounded by the polarized hinder/benefit dichotomy? I find that I can deal with the world more effectively. Your answer may be as you wrote in your last post:

But I truly believe that evil happens and if we gloss over evil...we will no longer be sensitive to evil. We will reach a post-evil stage even though there is still evil outside our daily lives.

I find that I am even more sensitive to things that are hurtful, destructive, illegal and reprehensible--not less. Perhaps the polarized view gets in the way of our being more effective--or skilled, in the way we deal with harmful things. Another benefit is that we can deal more skillfully with people. We no longer are bound to brand people according to polarized labels but can seek for more accurate causes. There are reasons for everythinng we do. I do not excuse behavior that is hurtful but I do believe that each and everytime there is a reason. If we see accurate reasons we are in a position to assist in growth. If we brand things with polarized terms we are not as effective.

Perhaps and maybe you are bumping into the problems of polarized thought. It is inadequate, not wrong, just inadequate to describe the complexities of being human.

Ed

[dancinfree]

Oh, oh, Born Free is in the dog house now. Good luck Born Free. I am glad that I am not in your shoes. :p But that being said I have to say that I am sick and tired of evil. Now let me explain. I know that evil exists. I believe that evil exists. I cannot cover up the use of the word evil. Evil is what evil does. For example: a brutal murder is evil and if the victim was a child...that is even more of an evil. Evil things happen in this world and a spade needs to be called a spade. This will help keep our sanity because if the word no longer exists I think our sanity will disappear. How else should we call an act that is atrocious and dispictable? However, I am tired of the evil feeling that I have about myself. It is not severe but I know that I am not leaving all the commandments but I do try to be a decent person to others. Perhaps I harm myself but I try my best not to harm others. But if I don't live all the commandments...am I evil? Am I an evil person? This is the point that I don't like. I don't like this devil thing...that every time I think a wrong thought or do a wrong thing...I have the devil inside me tempting me etc. I think that many members have felt this way. I want to see a god of love and not a god of vengence. But I truly believe that evil happens and if we gloss over evil...we will no longer be sensitive to evil. We will reach a post-evil stage even though there is still evil outside our daily lives. Lets smile even though it is raining outside my window... :)

Hi Why me,
I totally "get" where you are at right now. I remember being so entrenched with the idea of right and wrong, good vs. evil that I didn't even have an awareness of how it guided my life and my perspectives. I was just living it...not thinking about it. I remember it seemed like a strange world to even entertain the thought of allowing myself to even question my belief of wrong/right..good/bad. I had condemned myself for so long, I couldn't give myself a break from the belief. It's as if I had to hold on to it to somehow keep whipping myself and that was a good thing...cause I was such a sinner! To show God that I truly was good, I kept condemning myself..not allowing myself joy. I had to keep believing in a concept that brought me pain and suffering as part of my belief that this was the "right" way to go and believe. But one day it hit me....why did I choose to believe one way for good/evil etc.? What was my criteria for belief? Why did I choose that one and not another? Who's belief in the concepts am I choosing and WHY? I was finally but slowly able to define my OWN beliefs, the ones from my inner world, not be tied to something outside of my inner knowing. I was able to sever and let go of the knotted rope that held me bound and lost and when I let go, I found that I was able to finally find MY Truth! I had to risk and let go. It all came in its due time and your journey will appear as need be and IS. Continue your journey..keep digging into YOU!

[dancinfree]

Oh, oh, Born Free is in the dog house now. Good luck Born Free. I am glad that I am not in your shoes.


I know it's hard to totally "get" what intention people have in writing what they do but Born Free, I seriously did laugh out loud reading your quote so I just HAD to respond to that...hope you have a sense of humor :D

[Born Free]

I know it's hard to totally "get" what intention people have in writing what they do but Born Free, I seriously did laugh out loud reading your quote so I just HAD to respond to that...hope you have a sense of humor :D

I am a 'liberated man'. I am well practiced at getting in touch with my Inner:

Feminine,
Child-self
Teen-self
Nerd,
Reptile,
and last but not least: Dog

Daryl

[Born Free]

Well, Born Free, I would like to think that when you have read as much on the issue of the LDS church, you might hold an opinion somewhat closer to mine than the one you appear to currently hold and you would embrace full membership with flying colors!!

How does that sound to you?

OK, the water is getting muddied, so I had better try to not slosh around too much!

(I start with the BIG qualifier) My life experience being raised within Moism was to see behaviours in B&W terms, such as Good-Bad, Good-Evil. That made the world simple to conceptualise, but my experience has been that is was not very simple to deploy such a belief system.

I have come over time to see it may have been simplistic, and by that I mean that it over-simplified how the world works. That conclusion was both scary and freeing; scary in that I needed more information to get a new 'model' of how the world works and what motivates humans, and freeing in that I had the possibility of finding a model that better fitted the reality I experienced.

Moism had taught me to be sceptical about science. As I looked closely at the relative track records of religion and science, I found religion far more lacking tan science, whilst never pretending that science was inerrant.

So back to the dreaded 4 letter word. I find many people react to the proposal of dethroning the Evil word, as if such an action proposes that s#itful and God-aweful things do not happen in the world and some of the worst are done by human beings to other human beings.

Let me use a story to illustrate. I have a son, who went through a priod in life where his language was over the top and very imprecise. If his car had a broken alternator belt it was described as "The car is stuffed". Now his use of the word made him feel good, but if he was to describe his need to a mechanic who was expected to address the problem, better results would be achieved by using the words "broken alternator belt" than if he described it as "stuffed".

To use a contemporary US example, George Bush Jnr loves the "Evil" word. He uses it regularly to describe people he disagrees with. He seems to have a strong preference for the sort of emotive 'communication' one gets when vague words like 'evil' are used, because many of his arguments (IMHO) are pretty thin on for facts and substantial logic.

It is like that little 4 letter word is shorthand for Satan, attack-defend, We the holders of the Truth/Light/Democracy and the American Way/Them the perveyors of Filth, Lies, Deception/Dictatorship/Corruption/Rape/Pillage. Get my drift?

My experience is that attempting to be more specific, and describing behaviour is more skillfull than being vague and using shorthand, and being personal. Behaviour that shames people at their core rarely brings sustainable behavoural change. Being specific about what behaviour does not work tends to get much better results, and faster.

So, whilst being only too willing to accept than many people know more about LDS history and doctrine than I do and access their insights, I also find that few people after looking at just a little of what science now tells us about the "bad arses" find it easy to leave intact their old definition of 'evil'.

If it sounds like I am being dismissive, I assure I am not. There remain real challenges around the issue of 'agency' after we apply science to many behaviours. Here is a joking handling of this issue from a newspaper article here by a psychologist:

The seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy with the exception of pride, which has become a virtue, have become medical conditions, behavioural problems that require treatment rather than punishment. There are no sinners, only addictive personalities.

Those who would have previously been called lustful are now described as an "addicted" to sex and in need of therapy.

Gluttony has also been turned into an addiction, people suffering from one of a variety of eating disorders.

Anger is deemed by some to be the most powerful emotional addiction with conditions such as a "road rage", "computer rage" or "air rage". The therapeutic lobby claims a solution to this addiction is stress or anger management techniques.

Avarice and envy have been cast as the result of a consumer society, and diagnosed as impulse-control disorders.

Sloth, with conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has become medicalised. Some forms of sloth need not be a wholly negative condition and can be upheld as an antidote to stress related illnesses. Hard work is often seen as a risky enterprize, the positive virtue associated with work has given way to the conviction that work makes you ill.

Finally pride, though the most deadly of the seven sins, its absence constitutes a serious psychological problem, low self-esteem. The solution to poor educational performance, teenage pregnancy, crime, homelessness and anorexia is to raise the self-esteem.

The therapeutic imperative alters the concept not only of sin but also of virtue. In the Middle Ages, practising the seven contrary virtues: humility, kindness, abstinence, chastity, patience, liberality and diligence, was believed to protect one negates being tempted towards seven deadly sins. Today, people who practise some of these virtues are just as likely to be offered counselling as those who are tempted by sin. Too much kindness may lead to compassion fatigue. Diligence is sometimes dismissed as the act of someone suffering from a "perfectionist complex". Humble people lack self-esteem, and chastity is just another sexual dysfunction. Virtue is not so much its own reward as a condition requiring treatment.

In the face of that summation, it is tempting to go back to saying, "Too complex. All the 7 Deadly Sins are Evil - rooted in temptation from Satan".

Tempting it may be, but for me, I'd rather work with behaviour than something malevolent floating around in the ether.

I am not saying "I am more widely read than you, so shut up, and respect your elder!" I am saying it sounds like you are highly familiar with religous models of what 'evil' is. I suggest a short excersion into the scientific realm to see how plausable their model is by comparison.

If I put it clumsily, please excuse it on the basis that it was late night here after my first session back in the gym for months, and I may have not taken the time to present an argument with greater clarity and respect anothers different life path?

Can I leave the dog house now?

Daryl

[Born Free]

But unless I am misreading you, you still do not account for the people who have the same pathology as serial killers, but who do not become killers... Where are the statistics for people who fit the profile but do not go on to deviant behaviour?

Mary
Mary,

I do not have access to the information to answer that question. I suspect we know more about the killers because we look at them closely after the event to try to spot differences that might offer an explanation for their behaviour.

I do recall one interview I heard with a US female PhD who had researched many serial killers and along with them a man who had been an executioner for many, many years. His history turned out to be near identical to the (unlawful) killers.

From what I have read we only have about 20-25% choice. Genetics is now believed to account for 50%, and social forces about another 20-25%, leaving us 'responsbile' for the remaining 20-25%.

Some might argue that we are being negligent in saying we only have 20-25%. I tend to see that differently. By letting go of the parts we DO NOT control, we free ourselves up to become more realistic and therefore more effective about the bits we can control.

I see belief in Evil/Satan fits that picture. Investing energy down that road takes us to Salem witch hunts, and blaming grain mould poisoning upon possession by evil spirits. The latter was done as recently as the 50s in France, with Church priests being brought into to expel evil spirits. It did not save a soul, meanwhile the real culprit was right under their nose in a damper than usual season and a grain mould (not sure of the spelling, pronounced Erchot as I recall).

What we have not discussed is the belief in and practice of 'self-responsibility', which if I understand you clearly is your primary concern. Being responsible is about seeing and owning responsibility for those factors that are within ones control or influence.

The irony I see, is that anyone who accepts Satan/Evil as a major player in despicable acts, is in fact encouraging the avoidance of self-responsibility with the "Devil made me do it!" defence. Where is accountability in that?

Oh yes, you might relocate the responsibility to another point by saying "Well, you had choice when you made other smaller choices that either expelled or attracted Satan into your life".

The problem with that strategy is that pretty soon the threat of Satanic invasion now fills ones life, as some here have reported, and the person is then reduced to being so paranoid of Evil, that they fail to act and be responsible for the basics.

Daryl

[miss taken]

Hey Daryl,

You said,

I do not have access to the information to answer that question. I suspect we know more about the killers because we look at them closely after the event to try to spot differences that might offer an explanation for their behaviour.

I think my problem with looking for reasons for deviant behaviour, which is a worthwhile pursuit, is that one looks back in retrospect, after the act, so to speak. To my reasoning there just have to be as many people, if not more, who share the same early development and genetic make up who do not become killers. So, for me a purely behaviourist or nativist model would not give a sufficient explanation as to why killers do what they do.


Daryl said,

From what I have read we only have about 20-25% choice. Genetics is now believed to account for 50%, and social forces about another 20-25%, leaving us 'responsbile' for the remaining 20-25%.

That looks reasonably good to me, though I would argue that the 20-25% 'responsible' is the ruling factor, and ultimately the others are subservient to it.

Daryl said


What we have not discussed is the belief in and practice of 'self-responsibility', which if I understand you clearly is your primary concern. Being responsible is about seeing and owning responsibility for those factors that are within ones control or influence.

The irony I see, is that anyone who accepts Satan/Evil as a major player in despicable acts, is in fact encouraging the avoidance of self-responsibility with the "Devil made me do it!" defence. Where is accountability in that?

I 100% agree with you here, and if you had read ANY of my previous posts you would see that I have the same problems with a good/evil paradigm that leads people to say 'the devil made me do it', as in the case of Peter Sutcliffe a notorious British Killer.


Daryl said,

The problem with that strategy is that pretty soon the threat of Satanic invasion now fills ones life, as some here have reported, and the person is then reduced to being so paranoid of Evil, that they fail to act and be responsible for the basics.

Again, I completely agree with you, and I think this fear is greatest in the young (as it was with me) who do not have the maturity and perspective necessary to deal with the issue in a balanced way.


For what it is worth, I think we can agree that doing things through fear of punishment and hope of reward is ultimately unfulfilling to the individual, and a 'child-like' way of looking at the world, which can end up impeding our growth. I think we can also agree that the LDS church uses these tactics in an effort (whether knowingly or not) to keep its members in a child-like state of acceptance of its doctrine and theology.

I like Big Eddies concept (If I interpret him correctly) in looking at things as either productive or destructive to the growth of the individual.

As to the BIG questions.

Does the Devil exist? I don't honestly know.
Was there a War in Heaven? I don't honestly know.

What, if the Devil does exist, is his role on earth?

I don't know, but in examining his role in both old and new testament, it seems that his role changed considerably from God's instrument, onto the modern day notion of a guy with horns and cloven feet (a reflection of Greek and Roman thinking I suspect).

Culturally also, our view of the devil also is influenced by films and books such as The Excorcist (never seen it), and all those wierd films that I do remember watching in my 20's about Carrie, Damien, and the Older Vincent Price stuff, based on the books by Dennis Wheatly? I believe.

Mary

[Born Free]

Mary said:

"That looks reasonably good to me, though I would argue that the 20-25% 'responsible' is the ruling factor, and ultimately the others are subservient to it."

Mary,

I am unsure what you mean by this statement. I cannot see how my conscious 20-25% can control my genetic factors, unless I can identify I have dud genes (let's say a propensity to alcoholism) and either not pass along my genes, or get my genes modified. What did you have in mind here?

If you are suggesting that in our 20-25% control area we might be able to have some influence over socialisation, then I am in agreement, but with some reservations. Keep in mind that is a far more indirect process. (I should point out that this research did not conclude that it was family socialisation, but broader social groups, that had primary influence.)

Social engineering does not have a particularly positive history that I am aware of. Communists countries horrific attempts are the ones I am most aware of. Cambodia is one of the most recent and tragic examples. In western countries, with the emphasis upon social rights evolving out of individual rights, there is perceived to be no right to embark upon manufacturing change.

I do however believe that we can raise the levels of social awareness or suppress and devalue that. A recent article I read on sociopaths observed "Sociopathy appears to be relatively rare in certain East Asian countries. Studies conducted in Taiwan have found a low prevalence of anti-social personality disorder, ranging from .03 to .14% - impressively less than the Western world's average of 4%." Later "Other theorists propose that North American culture, which holds individualism as a central value, tends to foster the development of antisocial behaviour, and also to disguise it."

I have had some involvement with restorative justice processes here in Australia, and I find them incredibly exciting, even radical, in their potential. The guy who developed it here in Australia has taken it to the UK where it was picked up by the Thames Valley Police Force, so you may hear something of it in the UK.

I am glad we could reach a point of voilent agreement on most of this. It is getting cold out at nights here (not your snow), so I would like to keep out of the doghouse if possible. :)

Daryl

[miss taken]

Hi Daryl, what I was trying to emphasize is that I do not like any development model that makes us no more than puppets to either our genes, hormones, culture/social circumstance.

Theoretically, I do like the social constructivist (inasmuch as I understand it) model because it gives the individual more control over their development.

On a theological level, I like the saying purported to Jesus, 'as a man/woman thinketh in his heart so is he/she',

We are ultimately responsible for our thoughts are we not??? I may feel anger, and violence towards another human being or any living thing for that matter, and I may then 'think' about being violent to that individual, but it is my choice whether I give reign to those thoughts and feelings.

It's okay Daryl, you are not in the dog-house, I appreciate your experience on this issue. My field is in child development and I come to it from that angle, rather than through psychology direct.

Does this explain what I mean???

Mary

(I have lived most of my life in the Thames Valley btw!!!)

[miss taken]

Daryl,


I do however believe that we can raise the levels of social awareness or suppress and devalue that. A recent article I read on sociopaths observed "Sociopathy appears to be relatively rare in certain East Asian countries. Studies conducted in Taiwan have found a low prevalence of anti-social personality disorder, ranging from .03 to .14% - impressively less than the Western world's average of 4%." Later "Other theorists propose that North American culture, which holds individualism as a central value, tends to foster the development of antisocial behaviour, and also to disguise it."

I find this to be extremely interesting. When I was in Cyprus the crime rate was about 2%, the locals would account for it by saying that the social pressure to conform in a 'village' culture was great and over-arching.

In the UK we have long since lost this 'village' culture, I wonder if this ties into this research somehow.

Mary

[why me]

Why Me, I find this rather saddening. You are on the post-mormon forums, and yet you still feel like you must obey all the the church's commandments? Why do you feel that you have to jump through hoops to be a good person? Honestly, take a look at yourself and those around you. Can you truly say that you're doing so many things wrong?

That's part of why the church didn't work for me.. they told me that if I didn't do all these things A B and C that I wasn't a good person.. but I never, ever felt that I was doing something wrong or that I needed to change who I was to make them happy. But I've seen that guilt working on other people and it makes me sad. You say that someone who brutally murders a child is evil.. and then ask if you're evil, although (I'm assuming) you've done nothing like this ever. How can you even consider such a thought? You have a good heart and you're aware of yourself and your actions. Do you ask anything more of others? And if not.. why ask more of yourself? How can you even be remotely evil? Why guilt yourself into thinking you're a bad person? I think you're perfect the way you are.

What you said was very logical and I also think that you wrote a lot of 'truth'. If someone would say to me the things that I did I would say: "relax...you are a good and decent person who made some mistakes but life is too short for such turmoil or bad feelings". I am usually very kind to people who may tell me their 'wayward' ways. But I need to be more kind to myself or at least my mind needs to be more kind in how it presents me with feelings and thoughts. I need to treat myself inwardly better. I think that we do have posters and observers here that feel bad about their actions and who are trying to understand why they feel the way they do. Hopefully we can all help eachother feel good about ourselves and help those who are in crisis. And take joy with those who feel joy. This is so important for human development and also for the human spirit. Thanks aether for your comments. They are appreciated! :)

[why me]

Hi Why me,
I totally "get" where you are at right now. I remember being so entrenched with the idea of right and wrong, good vs. evil that I didn't even have an awareness of how it guided my life and my perspectives. I was just living it...not thinking about it. I remember it seemed like a strange world to even entertain the thought of allowing myself to even question my belief of wrong/right..good/bad. I had condemned myself for so long, I couldn't give myself a break from the belief. It's as if I had to hold on to it to somehow keep whipping myself and that was a good thing...cause I was such a sinner! To show God that I truly was good, I kept condemning myself..not allowing myself joy. I had to keep believing in a concept that brought me pain and suffering as part of my belief that this was the "right" way to go and believe. But one day it hit me....why did I choose to believe one way for good/evil etc.? What was my criteria for belief? Why did I choose that one and not another? Who's belief in the concepts am I choosing and WHY? I was finally but slowly able to define my OWN beliefs, the ones from my inner world, not be tied to something outside of my inner knowing. I was able to sever and let go of the knotted rope that held me bound and lost and when I let go, I found that I was able to finally find MY Truth! I had to risk and let go. It all came in its due time and your journey will appear as need be and IS. Continue your journey..keep digging into YOU!

Thanks for your comments and personal statements. I understand quite well this condemning syndrome which you mentioned. Hopefully I can follow along a similiar path of development. I am tired of battling 'evil'... :slap: --That's me fighting myself and 'evil' but evil is also slapping me. I am shadow boxing through life's opposites...
I am a little tired of digging into myself. I have dug so long that I have an intense desire to stop digging...but I am not that kind of person. I can't seem to live on the surface of life but I do admire those individuals who can spend a great portion of life on the life's surface. I suppose that people are different and yet similiar in so many ways. We all have blood and flesh and we all have daily experiences of joy and sadness. But to experiences life's opposites on the surface must be a wonderful thing. As for me, I am always in the inner waves...clutching the surf board by a string...at times my head reaches the water's surface and then I go under again. The good news is that I am alive and breathing under the water... :) But life on the water's surface must be wonderful... :)

[dancinfree]

My experience is that attempting to be more specific, and describing behaviour is more skillfull than being vague and using shorthand, and being personal. Behaviour that shames people at their core rarely brings sustainable behavoural change. Being specific about what behaviour does not work tends to get much better results, and faster.

I totally agree with you on this point and I have found that it is my personal experience that has taught me this fact that shaming doesn't work and being vague only causes confusion on definitions of evil/good. Looking at my own behaviour and seeing what works and doesn't work has been much more effective then the easy answer of good/bad, evil/good.

So, whilst being only too willing to accept than many people know more about LDS history and doctrine than I do and access their insights, I also find that few people after looking at just a little of what science now tells us about the "bad arses" find it easy to leave intact their old definition of 'evil'.

I guess I have chosen to leave my old definition behind me because it didn't work for me in my own life, not because science had anything to do with it for me. But I see where it can be quite frustrating for those who chose the easy answers in life or hide behind fear of questioning anything more.

The seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy with the exception of pride, which has become a virtue, have become medical conditions, behavioural problems that require treatment rather than punishment. There are no sinners, only addictive personalities.


[QUOTE]In the face of that summation, it is tempting to go back to saying, "Too complex. All the 7 Deadly Sins are Evil - rooted in temptation from Satan".

Tempting it may be, but for me, I'd rather work with behaviour than something malevolent floating around in the ether.

I agree with this whole article and I love it because it shows the complexity of this issue. It's not just black and white and I guess what I'm saying is that I didn't learn and love this idea from a science perspective but more of a life-personal perspective. We all learn differently and all paths are to be honored.

I am not saying "I am more widely read than you, so shut up, and respect your elder!" I am saying it sounds like you are highly familiar with religous models of what 'evil' is. I suggest a short excersion into the scientific realm to see how plausable their model is by comparison.

I don't think it is me you are thinking of because I don't have any many religous models of evil anymore..I gave up that notion of evil many moons ago but possibly it was Mary who is the more knowledgable one on that. I do look at life as more grey than ever and black/white doesn't serve me any longer. Science included or not, life has taught me that.



Can I leave the dog house now?]


You were never in the dog house..but you are free to go grab some kibble. :D Thanks for your clarity and it's funny that we basically agree on all points, we just have come to the same conclusion by different paths. Enjoy your journey!

[dancinfree]

Thanks for your comments and personal statements. I understand quite well this condemning syndrome which you mentioned. Hopefully I can follow along a similiar path of development. I am tired of battling 'evil'... :slap: --That's me fighting myself and 'evil' but evil is also slapping me. I am shadow boxing through life's opposites...
I am a little tired of digging into myself. I have dug so long that I have an intense desire to stop digging...but I am not that kind of person. I can't seem to live on the surface of life but I do admire those individuals who can spend a great portion of life on the life's surface. I suppose that people are different and yet similiar in so many ways. We all have blood and flesh and we all have daily experiences of joy and sadness. But to experiences life's opposites on the surface must be a wonderful thing. As for me, I am always in the inner waves...clutching the surf board by a string...at times my head reaches the water's surface and then I go under again. The good news is that I am alive and breathing under the water... :) But life on the water's surface must be wonderful... :)

Why me,

I would like to think that I don't live on the surface of life. All that I do and all that I say come from the inner world of myself and sometimes there is sunshine and sometimes there is storm but it's all necessary for my growth. By digging into myself I start to question how I believe about ME. If you find beliefs that are depleting and condemning, I ask you, Why do you continue to believe in a way that causes you pain or saddness about yourself? Do you find satisfaction in being "right" about yourself, even if it is negative? Are you so used to beating yourself up that it would be scary to allow yourself to judge yourself differently? Who do you think you are pleasing by condemning you?

These are the questions that I found useful in digging into me. You have a gentle spirit that just wants to be loved and you can be loved when you choose to finally let go of the ropes that bind you and let yourself love you, ALL the parts of you, the negative as well as the positive. For I have found that all the parts of me are necessary and useful in my journey in this life. When I opened my arms and embraced even the most shaming parts of me, I learned to be gentle with me and love me as a complete whole, rather than a dissected piece of a soul. I took the "judger" out of my head and replaced that voice with understanding.

Be gentle to yourself, you deserve joy because you are YOU and there is nothing wrong with YOU. When you are ready, you will cross over to embracing you. Trust in the process and just "BE" for today. Your inner world touches mine and in this process of connecting to you, I get to learn more of myself through it all...thank you for that. :p

[miss taken]

Daryl said

I am not saying "I am more widely read than you, so shut up, and respect your elder!" I am saying it sounds like you are highly familiar with religous models of what 'evil' is. I suggest a short excersion into the scientific realm to see how plausable their model is by comparison.

Daryl, of course I am highly familiar with religious models of what evil is. I spent 20years + in the LDS church, what do you expect...!!!!!

As stated before, I have spent 3 years in a Masters Programme investigating human development from conception onwards. It is an interesting area, and I am familiar with the works of Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, Chomski, and others. (though I do not claim to fully understand them all!!) Therefore, I would suggest that I have spent much of my time in education looking at the scientific basis of how we develop. It seems to be that there are no easy answers, and that each theory of human development has its critics.

My truck with you Daryl was only on the causes and explanations for deviant behaviour. I like Dancinfree, feel we probably agree more than we disagree at the end of the day!!!

Mary :eek:

[why me]

Why me,

I would like to think that I don't live on the surface of life. All that I do and all that I say come from the inner world of myself and sometimes there is sunshine and sometimes there is storm but it's all necessary for my growth. By digging into myself I start to question how I believe about ME. If you find beliefs that are depleting and condemning, I ask you, Why do you continue to believe in a way that causes you pain or saddness about yourself? Do you find satisfaction in being "right" about yourself, even if it is negative? Are you so used to beating yourself up that it would be scary to allow yourself to judge yourself differently? Who do you think you are pleasing by condemning you?

These are the questions that I found useful in digging into me. You have a gentle spirit that just wants to be loved and you can be loved when you choose to finally let go of the ropes that bind you and let yourself love you, ALL the parts of you, the negative as well as the positive. For I have found that all the parts of me are necessary and useful in my journey in this life. When I opened my arms and embraced even the most shaming parts of me, I learned to be gentle with me and love me as a complete whole, rather than a dissected piece of a soul. I took the "judger" out of my head and replaced that voice with understanding.

Be gentle to yourself, you deserve joy because you are YOU and there is nothing wrong with YOU. When you are ready, you will cross over to embracing you. Trust in the process and just "BE" for today. Your inner world touches mine and in this process of connecting to you, I get to learn more of myself through it all...thank you for that. :p

No you don't live on the surface of life...your posts demostrate that. But wouldn't you like to live on the surface of life for brief moments at a time? I have always been a digger into life. I can't say that it is a problem, it is just who I am. Diggers internalize the world, including the evils and the goodness. It is a part of the person's fabric. When I was 21, I felt like I was 42 from the inside out. Well...I am not better than anyone else it is just who I am, that's all. But it would be nice to achieve a simple life, just a normal simple life where everything can be enjoyed without a heavy head but with a light soul for just a short while. You are right. I need to be gentle with myself. I notice the same characteristics in my elder daughter. She has my soul and mind. I am always trying to be gentle with her and I am always trying to be positive with her on the phone. She is a beautiful and sweet girl and I am not just saying that because I am her father :rolleyes: . But I know that she is also a digger. Right now, she has no problems with the church but as she gets older and begins to experience life in all its complexities, I want to be there for her...to help her through the complex feelings that she may have toward life and if she cannot 'live' the gospel. We diggers need to stick together... :) Thanks for your posts...enjoy the dance! :)

[dancinfree]

No you don't live on the surface of life...your posts demostrate that. But wouldn't you like to live on the surface of life for brief moments at a time? I have always been a digger into life. I can't say that it is a problem, it is just who I am. Diggers internalize the world, including the evils and the goodness. It is a part of the person's fabric. When I was 21, I felt like I was 42 from the inside out. Well...I am not better than anyone else it is just who I am, that's all. But it would be nice to achieve a simple life, just a normal simple life where everything can be enjoyed without a heavy head but with a light soul for just a short while. You are right. I need to be gentle with myself. I notice the same characteristics in my elder daughter. She has my soul and mind. I am always trying to be gentle with her and I am always trying to be positive with her on the phone. She is a beautiful and sweet girl and I am not just saying that because I am her father :rolleyes: . But I know that she is also a digger. Right now, she has no problems with the church but as she gets older and begins to experience life in all its complexities, I want to be there for her...to help her through the complex feelings that she may have toward life and if she cannot 'live' the gospel. We diggers need to stick together... :) Thanks for your posts...enjoy the dance! :)

hello Why me,

You know, I think that living on the surface for me might be in those moments when I try not to figure everything out...sometimes life reveals itself as something that I can't figure out right away with my head and I have to surrender to faith that living in the moment is enough for now. When I have dug too deep where I feel depleted, I realize that my balance is off and I get to just let life "be" for awhile and just feel without trying to define or figure out all that is within me. That is where I find my light soul...it doesn't last all that long but it helps me when I'm overburdened in my own inner world. I have a tendency to go to the lows for a short while and then it feels more natural to come back to a more joyful state. I think I inherited this way of being from my mother. She taught me joy and laughter, even when she felt deep pain or loss, she would feel for awhile and then, with chin up, continue moving forward and seeing the positive in life. She has always been my idol in that area and I hope I am like her in that way. But I truly desire to be real and honor those times even when I'm in the depths...it seems now as I get older, I am more aware of those times, rather then just getting lost in them. Being aware for me is the key sometimes to expose what it is I get to learn in those times...but it takes quite a bit of digging sometimes..whew!!

You are such a sensitive father. She is lucky to have someone who is willing to feel and support her emotionally. I wish someone could have helped me understand why the church wasn't enough for me without me feeling that I was bad/sick and wrong, especially my father..Wow, that must be awesome for her.Your daughter might not realize it until later but she is blessed. I hope I am like that for my children. My daughter and I have a great relationship..I cross my fingers as the other two boys grow but all I can offer them is myself as an open and loving parent who is willing to be there for them when they need me. I cannot offer them absolutes in this world, be it, faith, God, religion, paths of life, but I'm here to support what they choose..I only hope they can choose joy as often as possible..I trust their spirits that they will find their truth along the way.

I love your posts..thanks for being a digger! Today I dance...other days I dance a little slower...smile a smile today with me, why me!! :D

[why me]

hello Why me,

You know, I think that living on the surface for me might be in those moments when I try not to figure everything out...sometimes life reveals itself as something that I can't figure out right away with my head and I have to surrender to faith that living in the moment is enough for now. When I have dug too deep where I feel depleted, I realize that my balance is off and I get to just let life "be" for awhile and just feel without trying to define or figure out all that is within me. That is where I find my light soul...it doesn't last all that long but it helps me when I'm overburdened in my own inner world. I have a tendency to go to the lows for a short while and then it feels more natural to come back to a more joyful state. I think I inherited this way of being from my mother. She taught me joy and laughter, even when she felt deep pain or loss, she would feel for awhile and then, with chin up, continue moving forward and seeing the positive in life. She has always been my idol in that area and I hope I am like her in that way. But I truly desire to be real and honor those times even when I'm in the depths...it seems now as I get older, I am more aware of those times, rather then just getting lost in them. Being aware for me is the key sometimes to expose what it is I get to learn in those times...but it takes quite a bit of digging sometimes..whew!!

You are such a sensitive father. She is lucky to have someone who is willing to feel and support her emotionally. I wish someone could have helped me understand why the church wasn't enough for me without me feeling that I was bad/sick and wrong, especially my father..Wow, that must be awesome for her.Your daughter might not realize it until later but she is blessed. I hope I am like that for my children. My daughter and I have a great relationship..I cross my fingers as the other two boys grow but all I can offer them is myself as an open and loving parent who is willing to be there for them when they need me. I cannot offer them absolutes in this world, be it, faith, God, religion, paths of life, but I'm here to support what they choose..I only hope they can choose joy as often as possible..I trust their spirits that they will find their truth along the way.

I love your posts..thanks for being a digger! Today I dance...other days I dance a little slower...smile a smile today with me, why me!! :D

I am sure that you are a great mom. Afterall, when you joined the forum aether gave you hugs for doing so. You seem to have a good relationship with her. And she seems to be a good 'kid'. ( I know that aether will hate to be called a kid. :D ) You must be proud of her.
I can give my girls love every day through our daily phones calls and words but how life turns out for them will be up to them and to fate or providence. But it is important for them to also believe that they are their own ship's captains and if they do have a strong belief in God, this will perhaps help them navigate a little better as long as this god is a god of love and forgiveness and not a judgemental god. I am just digging a little today but it is only three hours until my daughters arrive for a visit. Take care in Utah...and keep dancin in free motion.... :)

[why me]

I totally agree with you on this point and I have found that it is my personal experience that has taught me this fact that shaming doesn't work and being vague only causes confusion on definitions of evil/good. Looking at my own behaviour and seeing what works and doesn't work has been much more effective then the easy answer of good/bad, evil/good.



I guess I have chosen to leave my old definition behind me because it didn't work for me in my own life, not because science had anything to do with it for me. But I see where it can be quite frustrating for those who chose the easy answers in life or hide behind fear of questioning anything more.

[QUOTE]The seven deadly sins: lust, gluttony, avarice, sloth, anger, envy with the exception of pride, which has become a virtue, have become medical conditions, behavioural problems that require treatment rather than punishment. There are no sinners, only addictive personalities.




I agree with this whole article and I love it because it shows the complexity of this issue. It's not just black and white and I guess what I'm saying is that I didn't learn and love this idea from a science perspective but more of a life-personal perspective. We all learn differently and all paths are to be honored.



I don't think it is me you are thinking of because I don't have any many religous models of evil anymore..I gave up that notion of evil many moons ago but possibly it was Mary who is the more knowledgable one on that. I do look at life as more grey than ever and black/white doesn't serve me any longer. Science included or not, life has taught me that.






You were never in the dog house..but you are free to go grab some kibble. :D Thanks for your clarity and it's funny that we basically agree on all points, we just have come to the same conclusion by different paths. Enjoy your journey!

It is nice to find serendipity in posts...isn't it? (I hope that I know what the word serendipity means! :confused: )Well...for me it is a blending of one into the other in both mind and in spirit... :) Have fun out there!

[miss taken]

Went to see Star Wars did I. Good it was.

The dark side was likened to pure selfishness, and the good side to altruism.

Obi, interestingly, said that only the Sith would see things in such black and white terms.

also interesting that the Emperor told Anakin a lie wrapped around a half truth (the reason why Padme died).


Like it, did I!!
Very good it was...

(Helemon, I took my son and his friend and they loved it though 3 hours was a bit hard going)

Mary

[bigeddy]

Perhaps it would help to look at these two ways of dealing with human motives. I find that when I seek for reasons for peoples behavior that exclude "evil", some folks paint me as trying to "excuse" the hurtful, illegal, etc. things done by that person. It helps to clarify the difference between reason and excuse.

Mary seems to be concerned that if we explain some of the reasons for serial killers' behavior that we are excusing what they have done. (She also has been asking why, if the reason for their crimes is the way they were brought up, do not people with similar upbringing commit similar crimes. This one is only answerable on an individual basis but I have never had a hard time finding the reasons.) Anyway, by finding the reasons I am not giving an "excuse" for the behavior. The reason helps understand realities about humans. There is NO excuse for the hurtful things done. This is a hard one when dealing with sex offenders. For them to heal they must understand the reasons for their crimes, those reasons will never excuse the hurt they caused. But, when I try to get them to see the reasons some do grasp on and use that to excuse their crime. We have to work with them to stop trying to excuse. Finding the reasons is the only way I know to help them stop committing crimes. If I fall back on the evil/good polarized view I cannot help them. If the reason they molested is because they are evil then we are at a dead end. If there are other reasons (there always are) then we can move forward.

In short, the evil/good dichotomy just gets in the way of progress. There is no attempt to excuse the hurtful, illegal behavior, just an attempt to understand it at a deeper level. This is the reason I cannot participate in making things as simple as good/bad, right/wrong, black/white. It gets in the way of growth. I believe it is the reason the pulpit idiots fail to evolve toward wisdom. To get to wisdom we must get past polarized thought patterns.

Ed

[miss taken]

Perhaps it would help to look at these two ways of dealing with human motives. I find that when I seek for reasons for peoples behavior that exclude "evil", some folks paint me as trying to "excuse" the hurtful, illegal, etc. things done by that person. It helps to clarify the difference between reason and excuse.

Mary seems to be concerned that if we explain some of the reasons for serial killers' behavior that we are excusing what they have done. (She also has been asking why, if the reason for their crimes is the way they were brought up, do not people with similar upbringing commit similar crimes. This one is only answerable on an individual basis but I have never had a hard time finding the reasons.) Anyway, by finding the reasons I am not giving an "excuse" for the behavior. The reason helps understand realities about humans. There is NO excuse for the hurtful things done. This is a hard one when dealing with sex offenders. For them to heal they must understand the reasons for their crimes, those reasons will never excuse the hurt they caused. But, when I try to get them to see the reasons some do grasp on and use that to excuse their crime. We have to work with them to stop trying to excuse. Finding the reasons is the only way I know to help them stop committing crimes. If I fall back on the evil/good polarized view I cannot help them. If the reason they molested is because they are evil then we are at a dead end. If there are other reasons (there always are) then we can move forward.

In short, the evil/good dichotomy just gets in the way of progress. There is no attempt to excuse the hurtful, illegal behavior, just an attempt to understand it at a deeper level. This is the reason I cannot participate in making things as simple as good/bad, right/wrong, black/white. It gets in the way of growth. I believe it is the reason the pulpit idiots fail to evolve toward wisdom. To get to wisdom we must get past polarized thought patterns.

Ed

Big Eddy thanks for this. What you say makes a lot of sense, and I totally get the bit where you explain that calling someone evil wont solve anything, especially if you are in the job of rehabilitation.

There's also a part of me that says people like the Moors Murderers (Myra Hindley and her male cohort) went around killing young children after sexually abusing them. To me, I don't want to understand why they did it, and to me, they have committed crimes so grievious that they don't deserve to live, and they certainly don't deserve to ever be let out into the community again, they were far too dangerous. Same true for Fred West and his wife, totally psychotic.

Thanks for being patient with my developing opinions. I don't pretend to be an expert on this.

Mary

[flotsam]

If the reason they molested is because they are evil then we are at a dead end. If there are other reasons (there always are) then we can move forward.

In short, the evil/good dichotomy just gets in the way of progress. There is no attempt to excuse the hurtful, illegal behavior, just an attempt to understand it at a deeper level. This is the reason I cannot participate in making things as simple as good/bad, right/wrong, black/white. It gets in the way of growth. I believe it is the reason the pulpit idiots fail to evolve toward wisdom. To get to wisdom we must get past polarized thought patterns.

Ed


This is really interesting considering a comment I heard in Sunday School today. They were discussing the PLAN. You know, the one Jesus backed 'cause he was the favroite. The one Satan fought against.

Anyway, this lady said, "The scriptures say that Satan was evil from the very beginning, so he fought against God's plan because he was evil."

Huh. I guess we're at an impasse then. Evil be evil and good be good.

Just so happens the folks in the classroom had chosen God's plan, and were therefore - good.

Personally, sounds like bullpoopy to me. If they're going to construct a worldview where the highest players are simply good or evil, then it seems to me that their own thinking will never go beyond that. They'll only see good and evil.

That's the way I used to think, anyway. There's a certain comfort to it. But when I started to let go of that evil/good dichotomy I found myself becoming happier.

Because, of course, wickedness is always happiness.

And you can quote me on that. :D

But seriously folks. I was thinking that by making God just good and Satan just evil, neither side of the equation seemed strong at all. If Satan is just mindlessly going around being mean and God runs around being good for no reason, then no one has any brains and we're all just clockwork, grinding our way toward the end.

Whatever that is.

Maybe that why the Greek and Norse gods have stuck around long after anyone actually believed in them. THey were complex: sometimes Zeus was assisting hapless heros, sometimes he was impregnating everything with two feet (though he didn't mind doing it on four). Complex beings. I'd be more interested in the Mormon god if he were complex.

Well, I guess he boinked that one lady 2000 years ago.

(Where's my lightning rod?)

[why me]

This is really interesting considering a comment I heard in Sunday School today. They were discussing the PLAN. You know, the one Jesus backed 'cause he was the favroite. The one Satan fought against.

Anyway, this lady said, "The scriptures say that Satan was evil from the very beginning, so he fought against God's plan because he was evil."

Huh. I guess we're at an impasse then. Evil be evil and good be good.

Just so happens the folks in the classroom had chosen God's plan, and were therefore - good.

Personally, sounds like bullpoopy to me. If they're going to construct a worldview where the highest players are simply good or evil, then it seems to me that their own thinking will never go beyond that. They'll only see good and evil.

That's the way I used to think, anyway. There's a certain comfort to it. But when I started to let go of that evil/good dichotomy I found myself becoming happier.

Because, of course, wickedness is always happiness.

And you can quote me on that. :D

But seriously folks. I was thinking that by making God just good and Satan just evil, neither side of the equation seemed strong at all. If Satan is just mindlessly going around being mean and God runs around being good for no reason, then no one has any brains and we're all just clockwork, grinding our way toward the end.

Whatever that is.

Maybe that why the Greek and Norse gods have stuck around long after anyone actually believed in them. THey were complex: sometimes Zeus was assisting hapless heros, sometimes he was impregnating everything with two feet (though he didn't mind doing it on four). Complex beings. I'd be more interested in the Mormon god if he were complex.

Well, I guess he boinked that one lady 2000 years ago.

(Where's my lightning rod?)

Some would claim that there is a great deal of brain involved in satan and god' s ideas. There is also a lot of cunning and manipulation involved. And some would claim that it is certainly not mindless on the part of satan and god. I just know one thing: I am tired of the war. First I fought a war in heaven and now I am still in the fight. I am one tired old human being...tired of war. I want god and the devil to take a one week holiday so I can be like a gorrilla in an african forest...I can just be and nothing else. I just want to be and to be left alone by both good and evil. Is this too much to ask? Maybe it is... :)

[Born Free]

<snip>

Anyway, this lady said, "The scriptures say that Satan was evil from the very beginning, so he fought against God's plan because he was evil."

Huh. I guess we're at an impasse then. Evil be evil and good be good.

<snip>


I just recalled that Mo always taught that we come to earth becasue this material dimension is where we can make choices in a way that we cannot as spirit beings.

If that was the case, how could Satan, as a Son of the Morning, exercise agency to turn away from God the Father in the pre-existence?

I find it amusing these days that Mormons can expend so much energy speculating and studying over and over all this crap, and for what?

As the Dalai Lama said, does doctrine make you a better human being? In no way. It just is part of the mental games that Mos use to think they are superiour to others.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiight!

Daryl

[miss taken]

This thread got me to thinking about the war in heaven story too.

The way I understood it, was that Jesus wanted to give humanity the freedom to choose, and the son of the morning, wanted to get everyone to the 'celestial kingdom' without a single soul being lost, he also wanted the power that came with it. Whatever that means????
Since power always comes with great responsibility???

He is then, in Genesis, the very means by which 'choice' comes into the world. He seems to have been an integral part of the OT Jewish God's plan that would give humanity choice....

oh....none of it makes sense to me....

Mary

[bigeddy]

I want god and the devil to take a one week holiday so I can be like a gorrilla in an african forest...I can just be and nothing else. I just want to be and to be left alone by both good and evil. Is this too much to ask? Maybe it is... :)

I think this is such an important issue. Why me, what would you BE if you quit DOING and practiced just BEING? The whole issue of "doing good or evil" is just that; its an issue of doing. What if we were allowed to be? To be a human being? Instead of a human doing? In my mostage I was a human doing. I believed that "the natural man is an enemy to god and has been from the fall of Adam" and blah blah blah. I believed that if I allowed myself to just be, I would be the natural man. After all, I had all these feelings and I had been taught that those feelings were evil. (horny feelings, acquisatory feelings, angry feelings, etc.) Because I had been taught they were evil I had to assume they were indeed evil. So I had to be a human doing instead of a human being.

Once out of moland I allowed myself to just BE. Why me used the image of a gorilla. I wonder what you mean by that. Would you BE the natural man in a way that hurt people? I think not. What I found was that when I was allowed to just BE, when I allowed myself, unencumbered by all the good/evil shit, I was not a gorrila in the sense of a mindless ape just responding to bodily hungers. I was a BEING in tune with my environment and learning to act in a way that hurt noone but did indeed please me. It was wonderful.

So, why me, take that holiday. Take 2 months to just BE. Forget the good/evil war. Put down your sword and walk away. Smell the clean air; revel in the beauty around you and within you; consult your heart about what you really want, and then BE it. I think you will find that you do not want to be hurtful, illegal or a pain in the ass. You may want to rut like a young buck. Look at that and see what it really is all about--a mindless orgasm, or a meaningful, full-body connectedness with someone who symbolizes the divine feminine. Then go get it. You may find that some of your inclinations are gorilla-like in the way of acheiving a glorious balance. And, just like the gorillas you would BE in harmony and balance with what is around you. You may also find that unlike the gorilla you are moved by a deeper sense of growth and glory and that you will be moved to BE that. You would automatically temper your actions with this movement in the heart. No need to DO, just BE. Try it for a couple of months. Put the good/evil war on hold and just BE. I think you will find that the complexity is beautiful, and awesome.

Ed

[aether]

You may find that some of your inclinations are gorilla-like in the way of acheiving a glorious balance. And, just like the gorillas you would BE in harmony and balance with what is around you. You may also find that unlike the gorilla you are moved by a deeper sense of growth and glory and that you will be moved to BE that. You would automatically temper your actions with this movement in the heart. No need to DO, just BE. Try it for a couple of months. Put the good/evil war on hold and just BE. I think you will find that the complexity is beautiful, and awesome.

*applauds* Amen! This is a great post. You should follow his advice, Why Me.. it does feel wonderful...

[why me]

I think this is such an important issue. Why me, what would you BE if you quit DOING and practiced just BEING? The whole issue of "doing good or evil" is just that; its an issue of doing. What if we were allowed to be? To be a human being? Instead of a human doing? In my mostage I was a human doing. I believed that "the natural man is an enemy to god and has been from the fall of Adam" and blah blah blah. I believed that if I allowed myself to just be, I would be the natural man. After all, I had all these feelings and I had been taught that those feelings were evil. (horny feelings, acquisatory feelings, angry feelings, etc.) Because I had been taught they were evil I had to assume they were indeed evil. So I had to be a human doing instead of a human being.

Once out of moland I allowed myself to just BE. Why me used the image of a gorilla. I wonder what you mean by that. Would you BE the natural man in a way that hurt people? I think not. What I found was that when I was allowed to just BE, when I allowed myself, unencumbered by all the good/evil shit, I was not a gorrila in the sense of a mindless ape just responding to bodily hungers. I was a BEING in tune with my environment and learning to act in a way that hurt noone but did indeed please me. It was wonderful.

So, why me, take that holiday. Take 2 months to just BE. Forget the good/evil war. Put down your sword and walk away. Smell the clean air; revel in the beauty around you and within you; consult your heart about what you really want, and then BE it. I think you will find that you do not want to be hurtful, illegal or a pain in the ass. You may want to rut like a young buck. Look at that and see what it really is all about--a mindless orgasm, or a meaningful, full-body connectedness with someone who symbolizes the divine feminine. Then go get it. You may find that some of your inclinations are gorilla-like in the way of acheiving a glorious balance. And, just like the gorillas you would BE in harmony and balance with what is around you. You may also find that unlike the gorilla you are moved by a deeper sense of growth and glory and that you will be moved to BE that. You would automatically temper your actions with this movement in the heart. No need to DO, just BE. Try it for a couple of months. Put the good/evil war on hold and just BE. I think you will find that the complexity is beautiful, and awesome.

Ed


I do try to be in tune with my environment and sometimes I think that this is my problem. I see good and evil all around me. I see evil in homelessness and poverty. Or I see evil in how humans treat one another. Or I see evil in drug addiction and alcoholism. Or I see evil in the way in which we treat other fellow humans. But I also see good in life also. There is a kind thought and a kind deed. The way in which people help eachother in these threads is an act of good. But to be a gorilla is just to be in one's natural state of being. There is no god and no devil; there is just the will to be and to be alive. You exist because you are alive. I would like to know the natural state of the human without god and the devil inside the shadows of our existence. Who would we be without good and evil as a struggle between two forces of extremes? But I also know that a gorilla also has its problems. It is not easy to live with strange gorillas who come into your lived area...

[aether]

I do try to be in tune with my environment and sometimes I think that this is my problem. I see good and evil all around me.

I don't think that's quite what he meant, Why Me. Sure, there are unfortunate circumstances everywhere. There are also a lot of happy people. There's always going to be what you term "good" and "evil" everywhere. That can't be changed. That's why it's important to focus instead on one's self. You've said yourself that you think you might be evil, that you believe yourself to be a sinner and so you have to try doing good things so you can feel better about yourself. Yes? But I think, if you truly wanted to be like a gorilla (I know I do), they don't worry constantly about good and evil, or what they should do to be a "better person." They don't worry about God's judgement or the devil's temptation. They just are. They know how to be. I think that human nature, at it's core, is NOT evil (or, in more realistic terms, it is not destructive, ill-natured, cruel, or greedy). It's my personal goal in life to live as simply as I can, in order to be as happy as I can. I find that I'm happiest when I'm not worrying about what I "should" morally be doing. When I act completely on my own intuition, disregarding any useless definitions of actions like "sin," I am much happier. It leads me to believe that when everyone's layers are all stripped down, they are exactly the same.. they are unburdened by the stress of morality and are truly happy. I think that deep down, the only thing that anyone really wants is to love and to be loved. How can humans therefore be inherently evil? I think, Why Me, that you should try to just let go. I know that sounds kind of ambiguous, but I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

[why me]

I don't think that's quite what he meant, Why Me. Sure, there are unfortunate circumstances everywhere. There are also a lot of happy people. There's always going to be what you term "good" and "evil" everywhere. That can't be changed. That's why it's important to focus instead on one's self. You've said yourself that you think you might be evil, that you believe yourself to be a sinner and so you have to try doing good things so you can feel better about yourself. Yes? But I think, if you truly wanted to be like a gorilla (I know I do), they don't worry constantly about good and evil, or what they should do to be a "better person." They don't worry about God's judgement or the devil's temptation. They just are. They know how to be. I think that human nature, at it's core, is NOT evil (or, in more realistic terms, it is not destructive, ill-natured, cruel, or greedy). It's my personal goal in life to live as simply as I can, in order to be as happy as I can. I find that I'm happiest when I'm not worrying about what I "should" morally be doing. When I act completely on my own intuition, disregarding any useless definitions of actions like "sin," I am much happier. It leads me to believe that when everyone's layers are all stripped down, they are exactly the same.. they are unburdened by the stress of morality and are truly happy. I think that deep down, the only thing that anyone really wants is to love and to be loved. How can humans therefore be inherently evil? I think, Why Me, that you should try to just let go. I know that sounds kind of ambiguous, but I think you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I suppose what I meant was that if there were no god and devil and we could just be, what would we be like. At this moment, our mindset is based on god and the devil, both co-existing at the other end of the poll, both at war for the souls of humankind. And we are influenced by both sides. But with a gorilla there is no god or devil. They only exist and are able to be themselves in the forest. Who would we be without the war that is now being waged for our souls? Now if there is no god and no satan, then of course we are who we now are and I don't think that this is a compliment to humanity.
But on the other hand, if religion is bogus, then we can begin not to justify evil by claiming it is satan's influence; rather we can begin to concenstrate on our own humanity. True change comes from within the heart and soul of humankind. It starts with us but also we need to take into account how we treat people in our community and society at large. Maybe it is to do a rethink about our collective role on this earth and by doing so, develop a liveable and sustainable system where we can develop the best in us all and develop a more social way of life. :)

[aether]

I suppose what I meant was that if there were no god and devil and we could just be, what would we be like.

And what I meant was... we'd be exactly the same. I don't believe in the devil, and I don't believe God is trying to influence our actions in any way. We created all this ourselves. There is no war for our souls, there is no epic victory in eternity when one person converts from one religion to another. This is it. This is being.

[dancinfree]

They only exist and are able to be themselves in the forest. Who would we be without the war that is now being waged for our souls? Now if there is no god and no satan, then of course we are who we now are and I don't think that this is a compliment to humanity.

Excuse me Why me but I believe that who you are and who I am DOES compliment humanity. I don't see people as a society..I see people as individuals and as individuals, I see more beauty and effectiveness then anything else... I feel all these individual people on this site desire to question..to find out their own truths...to DIG..to face their own reality and not be afraid. I only see this as proof of the beauty of mankind!!

I see you as you are and with or without some impetus of a god or a satan...you and I are glorious..divine..beautiful in and of ourselves IMO. I trust that people, when all the layers of pain, judgement, guilt, fear, and anger (to name a few) are peeled away, there is a human being who desires unconditional love and value choosing positive paths in their lives. That does not require a god or satan to observe that..to desire that...to trust in that.


But on the other hand, if religion is bogus, then we can begin not to justify evil by claiming it is satan's influence; rather we can begin to concenstrate on our own humanity. True change comes from within the heart and soul of humankind. It starts with us but also we need to take into account how we treat people in our community and society at large. Maybe it is to do a rethink about our collective role on this earth and by doing so, develop a liveable and sustainable system where we can develop the best in us all and develop a more social way of life. :)

Yes, I would say religion is bogus to some..it is not needed for growth and development but for some it is, so it could it truly ever be bogus for ALL? Individually, we all have our paths but without God or Satan to take responsibility, we then get to take it on for ourselves, our OWN responsibility. It starts with me and ends with me. I cannot focus on society effectively until I can truly say that I accept me and my choices and I value the freedom to choose for myself and for others...then I can accept other choices made by those around me. I can then decide for myself what is effective or not effective for my life. You mention a" liveable and sustainable system". I am living in that right now. I live in a sustainable and livable system right now that works for me. If it doesn't work for me then it's my choice to look elsewhere to find what does but I refuse to force my definition on others..I trust that they will find what works for them and work towards it for them..NOT ME...I choose what is liveable and sustainable for me...I can look at others' examples and then I am free to choose what works for me. You mention, "develop the best in us all"...who's definition are you using for "best"? Who's way of being is best for me? Yours? The Church's? The (choose whatever political party you want)? The (choose whatever country's culture you want)? Please respect me and all others that as I am free to choose without fear, judgement or condemnation, that I will choose the best for ME and my life. If I, as an individual am allowed and find freedom in choice and others are allowed the same, then society falls where it may or rises where it may..but that's where the beauty is..again, choice to rise or fall...that is my responsibility. My hope is that as we individually find our own truths, society will rise to the occasion. If everyone took care of their "own", then society would rise...not out of FORCE but out of CHOICE. But if given the freedom to choose and society falls (IMO) then so be it...the principle of FREEDOM of CHOICE is more valuable then safety in FEAR and FORCE for me.

[why me]

Excuse me Why me but I believe that who you are and who I am DOES compliment humanity. I don't see people as a society..I see people as individuals and as individuals, I see more beauty and effectiveness then anything else... I feel all these individual people on this site desire to question..to find out their own truths...to DIG..to face their own reality and not be afraid. I only see this as proof of the beauty of mankind!!

I see you as you are and with or without some impetus of a god or a satan...you and I are glorious..divine..beautiful in and of ourselves IMO. I trust that people, when all the layers of pain, judgement, guilt, fear, and anger (to name a few) are peeled away, there is a human being who desires unconditional love and value choosing positive paths in their lives. That does not require a god or satan to observe that..to desire that...to trust in that.




Yes, I would say religion is bogus to some..it is not needed for growth and development but for some it is, so it could it truly ever be bogus for ALL? Individually, we all have our paths but without God or Satan to take responsibility, we then get to take it on for ourselves, our OWN responsibility. It starts with me and ends with me. I cannot focus on society effectively until I can truly say that I accept me and my choices and I value the freedom to choose for myself and for others...then I can accept other choices made by those around me. I can then decide for myself what is effective or not effective for my life. You mention a" liveable and sustainable system". I am living in that right now. I live in a sustainable and livable system right now that works for me. If it doesn't work for me then it's my choice to look elsewhere to find what does but I refuse to force my definition on others..I trust that they will find what works for them and work towards it for them..NOT ME...I choose what is liveable and sustainable for me...I can look at others' examples and then I am free to choose what works for me. You mention, "develop the best in us all"...who's definition are you using for "best"? Who's way of being is best for me? Yours? The Church's? The (choose whatever political party you want)? The (choose whatever country's culture you want)? Please respect me and all others that as I am free to choose without fear, judgement or condemnation, that I will choose the best for ME and my life. If I, as an individual am allowed and find freedom in choice and others are allowed the same, then society falls where it may or rises where it may..but that's where the beauty is..again, choice to rise or fall...that is my responsibility. My hope is that as we individually find our own truths, society will rise to the occasion. If everyone took care of their "own", then society would rise...not out of FORCE but out of CHOICE. But if given the freedom to choose and society falls (IMO) then so be it...the principle of FREEDOM of CHOICE is more valuable then safety in FEAR and FORCE for me.


You are such an optimist when it comes to human beings. I am sort of pessimistic about the human potential. I don't see much room for optimism...but I do see human good around me and perhaps this is a reason to be optimistic when it comes to free choice. I see many choosing the seven deadly sins (and I am not being religious here) all around me too. And the deadly sins seem to be winnng. I see society becoming more self-centered, survivalist and social Darwinist. But I need your doses of optimism for my own personal well-being but then again the people on this forum seem like great people who care about their fellow human beings...they seem to have heart and soul about them and I know that there are many like them out there in the world. Erich Fromm asked two questions in his book 'The Sane Society'. (1) Can a society be sick? (2) Are we sane? I answer these questions with a (1) yes and a (2) no Much of my reasoning is based on the choices that we are making as a collective society and as a collective planet. Perhaps we need certain behavior rules to make us more ethical and moral in our decision making and perhaps we need some wholesome collective values to live by and to build our free choices from these wholesome values... :)

[aether]

Much of my reasoning is based on the choices that we are making as a collective society and as a collective planet.

I know this is pointless since everyone's stopped considering my ideas anyway, but..

What collective choices are we making, why me? What is the society, that massive insane beast, actively doing? I don't know about you, but every choice I make that has relevance to society, is not a societal choice. Everything is individual. And individuals, as a rule, are fine. They are okay. Look around at your neighborhood. How many sick and insane people do you know? A society cannot be sick unless the majority of its inhabitants are sick. Nothing is going downhill. We're not growing steadily more immoral; we are exploring options. Most of that exploration is for the best, I think. One example is the emergence of homosexuality in public. I think that's an example of society in general heading in the right direction (not making a collective choice to head in that direction, mind you - it's all individual). People are unwise sometimes and make stupid choices - perhaps that's what you see is so evil about the society that I'm a part of, and that everyone I love is a part of - but over all things are just fine.

[peter_mary]

I know this is pointless since everyone's stopped considering my ideas anyway, but..



What!? NO! Just trying to wrap our minds around your (--get ready for a newly adulterated word--) dazzlingaciousness!

What collective choices are we making, why me? What is the society, that massive insane beast, actively doing? I don't know about you, but every choice I make that has relevance to society, is not a societal choice. Everything is individual. And individuals, as a rule, are fine. They are okay. Look around at your neighborhood. How many sick and insane people do you know? A society cannot be sick unless the majority of its inhabitants are sick. Nothing is going downhill. We're not growing steadily more immoral; we are exploring options. Most of that exploration is for the best, I think. One example is the emergence of homosexuality in public. I think that's an example of society in general heading in the right direction (not making a collective choice to head in that direction, mind you - it's all individual). People are unwise sometimes and make stupid choices - perhaps that's what you see is so evil about the society that I'm a part of, and that everyone I love is a part of - but over all things are just fine.

Exactly! You are talking chaos theory (a personal favorite) and evolution (another favorite). I couldn't agree more. Societies unfold, exploring along the complex boundary of the ordered old and the undifferentiated new. Some experiments fail, others survive, but it's forever dynamic.

Another important point is to consider the possibility that even that which seems evil to the individual can serve a beneficial purpose to the population on the whole. I admit, this is a mighty unsavory proposition to the person affected, but it might serve a benefit to the planet. Systems have a way of balancing themselves.

Take for instance a forest fire. If the system gets too out of balance (i.e. too much fuel loading in the system), then it becomes ripe for a fire. A lot of individual trees burn up in the ensuing fire (sucks if you are one of them). But afterward, the system is ready for regeneration.

Could it be that SARS, HIV, Hantavirus, Avian Flu, etc. are all indicators of too many folks in the system? Is it possible that we are experiencing a "forest fire" of sorts, but that we are actually setting ourselves up for a BIGGER disaster in the future because we keep putting it out? Hmmm...food for thought...and yet I don't doubt I would seek medical attention for my child if she contracted one of these "fires!"

Death is what makes new life possible. The system doesn't just have to accept it as inevitable...it DEPENDS on it for its very life! And yet, don't we think of death as the ultimate evil?

In a sense, that's the point of the myth cycle...to recognize that what is old must die in order to make way for whatever new is coming next. When we cling to what is old (traditional values, traditional religion, traditional paradigms), we see ourselves as being threatened. When we release those old things to the ever-evolving, ever-balancing, ever-unfolding universe, we can find ourselves evolving in the new, rather than dying in the old.

I agree that the recent developments regarding the rights of homosexuals in the US is endemic to that process, much the same as the Civil Rights movement was in the 50's and 60's. There were a lot of people willing to die, if necessary, to keep black children out of white schools. They were clinging, much as the conservative right is clinging to "traditional family values" (a euphamism for "anti-homosexual values").

Personally, I believe that the clinging is poison...it frustrates us as humans, and is the source of our unhappiness. Seeking to understand the coming changes, and to evolve with the developing philosophical underpinnings of those changes keeps a person on the advancing edge of humanity...young, alive, and fresh.

That's where I want to be...surfing the advancing edge of humanity...

Peter_Mary

[dancinfree]

You are such an optimist when it comes to human beings. I am sort of pessimistic about the human potential. I don't see much room for optimism...but I do see human good around me and perhaps this is a reason to be optimistic when it comes to free choice. I see many choosing the seven deadly sins (and I am not being religious here) all around me too. And the deadly sins seem to be winnng. I see society becoming more self-centered, survivalist and social Darwinist. But I need your doses of optimism for my own personal well-being but then again the people on this forum seem like great people who care about their fellow human beings...they seem to have heart and soul about them and I know that there are many like them out there in the world. Erich Fromm asked two questions in his book 'The Sane Society'. (1) Can a society be sick? (2) Are we sane? I answer these questions with a (1) yes and a (2) no Much of my reasoning is based on the choices that we are making as a collective society and as a collective planet. Perhaps we need certain behavior rules to make us more ethical and moral in our decision making and perhaps we need some wholesome collective values to live by and to build our free choices from these wholesome values... :)

Again I have to ask you who's definition of sanity do I judge by? I see diversity in definition...that's the beauty of our humanity..we don't all come from the same space to define...we don't all have the same definition of "wholesome values"...I don't want to start from some wholesome value to build on..screw it..let me choose from wherever and however I come from..that is the beauty of choosing!!! Your definition of ethics and morals may be different then mine..whose do I live by?

Like I said before..given true freedom of choice, I believe people will choose wise for themselves but if not then SO BE IT!! The true test of humanity is to set them free and see what happens..DARE to TRUST..if we all give our input as examples to live by I hope individual choices lead a society to rise (whatever that looks like) for themselves but if not then what? What's the worse thing that can happen...we all destroy one another and that's the end..well, I say GREAT! The freedom is worth it..we all have to die sometime, but I say this knowing within myself that I would choose what works for me and what works for me is limiting my definitions for use with only myself and NOT forcing my way of thinking and living onto anyone else. I want to be free..I believe in me and my inner voice and I want the same and trust in the value of others doing the same. I guess, I'm willing to trust the process of choice.

I see what you see in society but I also see how our society does serve our fellowman..I see giving of self all around me, I see groups organized to bring love and peace and health to others...not because its the "right" thing to do or because they are forced to follow a political voice but they choose to do so freely, from their own desires..from their own sense of self. I see beauty, the selflessness...the power of love and caring..given the freedom to do so, I believe most individual people gravitate to those things that feed their souls and for me that is a rising of a society. I desire for myself and others the freedom to fail or succeed (recognizing that failure and success can only be defined my me for me). My arms are open to those who desire something effective that they see in me and my way of being but I will not FORCE them to hold out their hands..I will not MAKE them want to succeed so that I can have my peace of mind thinking that NOW society is doing good. No way man!! That is only a SAFE way of being but for me it's not honest nor REAL!

I can only go by my examples in life and I am surrounded by negative and positives but as I stop judging people and they do the same to me, I find there is acceptance and love and a desire to be effective in our community. Sure, there are those who don't desire this and that's fine as long as it doesn't violate my freedom to choose.

I hope you know how valuable posting with you is for me. I truly thrive to explore more and more how I truly feel. The great gift is that I'm learning so much..not only about your space and your truth but I get to find out more of who I am and why I am...loads of gratitude to you!!

[why me]

I know this is pointless since everyone's stopped considering my ideas anyway, but..

What collective choices are we making, why me? What is the society, that massive insane beast, actively doing? I don't know about you, but every choice I make that has relevance to society, is not a societal choice. Everything is individual. And individuals, as a rule, are fine. They are okay. Look around at your neighborhood. How many sick and insane people do you know? A society cannot be sick unless the majority of its inhabitants are sick. Nothing is going downhill. We're not growing steadily more immoral; we are exploring options. Most of that exploration is for the best, I think. One example is the emergence of homosexuality in public. I think that's an example of society in general heading in the right direction (not making a collective choice to head in that direction, mind you - it's all individual). People are unwise sometimes and make stupid choices - perhaps that's what you see is so evil about the society that I'm a part of, and that everyone I love is a part of - but over all things are just fine.

Actually, aether I look at your posts carefully and that is why I can say what I say about you. :) I know that society is made up of individuals but these individuals form a collective whole. American society is influenced by media, education, politics, laws, and a commonly shared economic structure. As individuals we are also influenced by family and individual experiences. But the collective influence from the above is what interests me. Your mother is correct when she writes that she sees the giving nature of humans all around her. There is that collective spirit of giving and optimism in the hearts of some. But the collective spirit is basically formed by a social system which is social darwinist in outlook. There is alot of inner pain out there and outer poverty also. I wish that I can see the human in a good light and I do to some extent...but the seven deadly sins are very much alive in the hearts of men and women and are planet is suffering accordingly. I think that we need to understand just want a social Darwinist economic structure is doing to the human being and to the planet as a whole, both inside and outside the United States. But this is my take on the matter...but do I want to be more optimistic about the human being? Yes I do. I hope for more heartfelt change in the human soul---a change which stresses the collective well-being of humankind and enhances the collective impulse to share life and not exploit life. For me, it's sustainablity at the expense of profitablity...and creative life at the expense of productivity and exploitation.... I am listening to you aether... :) How does it feel to be a senior member of this forum? Ummmm....I do see some grey around the edges... :D

[aether]

But the collective influence from the above is what interests me.

It seems that we're at a standstill then. It doesn't appear that our world are even the same worlds. It makes sense, really, since I'm somewhat of a disciple of Ayn Rand. I know she wouldn't get along with no Marxist. ^_^

but the seven deadly sins are very much alive in the hearts of men and women and are planet is suffering accordingly.

I think what I don't like here is your use of the word sin. I don't believe in sin, I don't think anything is punishable by God. Also, we are not all that sinful. I say again, look around at your neighborhood. How many evil people do you know?

There's a song that I like by the Postal Service that kind of applies here.

"Again last night I had that same dream
where everything was exactly how it seemed
where concerns about the world getting warmer,
people thought that they were just being rewarded
for treating others as they'd like to be treated,
for obeying stop signs and curing diseases,
for mailing letters with the address of the sender,
now we can swim any day in November."

I like this song because it takes everyone's panicky fears about being such an evil, doomed society and turns it on its head in a common sense way to show that people are not all that bad.


I think that we need to understand just want a social Darwinist economic structure is doing to the human being and to the planet as a whole, both inside and outside the United States.

Hey now... what exactly is it doing again? I'm a supporter of capitalism. I think it encourages a hard work ethic in order to "make it," one thing that many people really are lacking. Actually I pretty much believe in survival of the fittest when it comes to anything. It's one of those morals we learn from nature (that was discussed in another thread). When one person works hard, it ratchets his competitor up to do a better job.. which ratchets someone else up, and so on and so forth. Of course there are those who will give up. But they can just be middle class and work for the people who are ratcheting up, no problem. There's nothing wrong with having a lower class, and economically it's even beneficial. Besides, in a truly capitalistic society, any lower-class member can change his mind and work just as hard as anyone else, to rise to the top. What exactly is wrong with social Darwinism again?

How does it feel to be a senior member of this forum? Ummmm....I do see some grey around the edges... :D

Ahh! I didn't even notice until you said something. Man that's weird. I've only been here about a month and a half... sheesh.

[why me]

It seems that we're at a standstill then. It doesn't appear that our world are even the same worlds. It makes sense, really, since I'm somewhat of a disciple of Ayn Rand. I know she wouldn't get along with no Marxist. ^_^



I think what I don't like here is your use of the word sin. I don't believe in sin, I don't think anything is punishable by God. Also, we are not all that sinful. I say again, look around at your neighborhood. How many evil people do you know?

There's a song that I like by the Postal Service that kind of applies here.

"Again last night I had that same dream
where everything was exactly how it seemed
where concerns about the world getting warmer,
people thought that they were just being rewarded
for treating others as they'd like to be treated,
for obeying stop signs and curing diseases,
for mailing letters with the address of the sender,
now we can swim any day in November."

I like this song because it takes everyone's panicky fears about being such an evil, doomed society and turns it on its head in a common sense way to show that people are not all that bad.




Hey now... what exactly is it doing again? I'm a supporter of capitalism. I think it encourages a hard work ethic in order to "make it," one thing that many people really are lacking. Actually I pretty much believe in survival of the fittest when it comes to anything. It's one of those morals we learn from nature (that was discussed in another thread). When one person works hard, it ratchets his competitor up to do a better job.. which ratchets someone else up, and so on and so forth. Of course there are those who will give up. But they can just be middle class and work for the people who are ratcheting up, no problem. There's nothing wrong with having a lower class, and economically it's even beneficial. Besides, in a truly capitalistic society, any lower-class member can change his mind and work just as hard as anyone else, to rise to the top. What exactly is wrong with social Darwinism again?



Ahh! I didn't even notice until you said something. Man that's weird. I've only been here about a month and a half... sheesh.


I used the words seven deadly sins not in a religious context but rather to describe certain active trends in societies. I think aether that you have been social conditioned to believe that life is made for capitalism and that the human condition is best served through the free market policy of Freidman and Adam Smith. You are after all a true blue american...born and raised under the banner of free enterprise. Unfortunately, the economic and political elite of many countries are adapting to the American way of doing life. And of course we can see the consequences of such policies in France and in Germany not to mention in the various former Warsaw pact countries where business as unsurped the social and where the social contract has been broken in favor of cowboy capitalism. This is one reason why the French and the Dutch voted down the EU constitution---it was too economically Anglo-Saxon ie, too economically American-centered. The American way is not the only way for capitalism to prosper. I, for one, am in love with the Welfare State where equality and social justice are more in place and the safety net is strong and viable. Unfortunately, European welfare states cannot compete with the lean and mean American system and with the new emerging markets of eastern europe and china where labor is cheap and business is king and where the social is almost non-existent. Social Darwinism benefits the rich at the expense of the weak and the unfortunate. It should have no place in the human condition.... :) IMO, American capitalism is the embodiment of evil....if there is such a thing as evil...does this sound harsh? But the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer....and isn't that evil? :mad:---this is a nice mad face from an old marxist dinosaur....

[aether]

I think aether that you have been social conditioned to believe that life is made for capitalism and that the human condition is best served through the free market policy of Freidman and Adam Smith.

Whoa excuse me Why Me but I think I'd better stop you right there. Please give me more credit than that. I know better than to just follow my social conditioning (which is weak, at best). I have put a lot of thought into any opinion I put out, as I'm sure you have. I have been taught both sides of the issue, so please do not assume I am the ignorant little girl I appear to be.

And of course we can see the consequences of such policies in France and in Germany not to mention in the various former Warsaw pact countries where business as unsurped the social and where the social contract has been broken in favor of cowboy capitalism.

Well to be honest I'm not familiar with the Warsaw pact. I am familiar with examples where capitalism has had good consequences in society, such as Bangkok. An almost complete ideal capitalist economy began to grow there, and it transformed the place into a booming, successful place where the standard of living was much, much higher. Then you look at places like India, where they try to homogenize the economy so much that it stifles everything and turns the country into a ghetto. There are of course many untold factors that could account for these. But those also exist in the examples you're using.

Social Darwinism benefits the rich at the expense of the weak and the unfortunate. It should have no place in the human condition.... :)

I beg to differ. I mean, yes it does benefit the rich. But if it's true capitalism, the rich get to be rich because they earn it. Same with the poor. Quality begets quality. I think that for the sake of the public in general there should be some sort of cushion at the bottom, for those people who really are unable to compete. These reasons would only be things like intelligence deficit and physical handicaps. Laziness should not be an excuse to get welfare, as it often is in today's society, and will be in an economy that is completely socialistic.

[why me]

Whoa excuse me Why Me but I think I'd better stop you right there. Please give me more credit than that. I know better than to just follow my social conditioning (which is weak, at best). I have put a lot of thought into any opinion I put out, as I'm sure you have. I have been taught both sides of the issue, so please do not assume I am the ignorant little girl I appear to be.



Well to be honest I'm not familiar with the Warsaw pact. I am familiar with examples where capitalism has had good consequences in society, such as Bangkok. An almost complete ideal capitalist economy began to grow there, and it transformed the place into a booming, successful place where the standard of living was much, much higher. Then you look at places like India, where they try to homogenize the economy so much that it stifles everything and turns the country into a ghetto. There are of course many untold factors that could account for these. But those also exist in the examples you're using.



I beg to differ. I mean, yes it does benefit the rich. But if it's true capitalism, the rich get to be rich because they earn it. Same with the poor. Quality begets quality. I think that for the sake of the public in general there should be some sort of cushion at the bottom, for those people who really are unable to compete. These reasons would only be things like intelligence deficit and physical handicaps. Laziness should not be an excuse to get welfare, as it often is in today's society, and will be in an economy that is completely socialistic.

Aether, I meant that we both have been social conditioned into the american way of life. It doesn't have anything to do with smarts. Most American have been conditioned to believe that american is the greatest country on earth and that freedom is the ingrained in the american way of doing life. Our education system conditions us to believe the way we do and to act the way we act. We cannot escape this conditioning. How often have I heard on American TV that we are GREAT and we are FREE. When I was young I was told to move to Russia and to love America or leave it. This is conditioning. I have said to you often that you are intelliengent but you and I and free thinker or anyone else cannot escape the social conditioning that we have experienced in our country and in our society. Of course this is only my opinion. Miss Taken is British...maybe she has a different take on social conditioning in Britain...thanks for posting your thoughts... :) I am writing this fast because I am in an internet cafe and it is closing time... :) Sorry for any mistakes in grammar or spelling...

[dancinfree]

Aether, I meant that we both have been social conditioned into the american way of life. It doesn't have anything to do with smarts. Most American have been conditioned to believe that american is the greatest country on earth and that freedom is the ingrained in the american way of doing life. Our education system conditions us to believe the way we do and to act the way we act. We cannot escape this conditioning. How often have I heard on American TV that we are GREAT and we are FREE. When I was young I was told to move to Russia and to love America or leave it. This is conditioning. I have said to you often that you are intelliengent but you and I and free thinker or anyone else cannot escape the social conditioning that we have experienced in our country and in our society. Of course this is only my opinion. Miss Taken is British...maybe she has a different take on social conditioning in Britain...thanks for posting your thoughts... :) I am writing this fast because I am in an internet cafe and it is closing time... :) Sorry for any mistakes in grammar or spelling...

Why me...I'm writing as if you are responding to me also..so I hope you don't mind me replying to this too.

America is probably the most free country on earth, however, it has many socialistic programs and it is not the ideal and free society that you accuse me or any one that lives here in the USA of being conditioned by.

Some examples of American socialism include social security, free public education, the FDA, food stamps, required workmans comp, artificially derived dairy prices, government run railroads, welfare and others. These prompt the usual american to feel safe in these programs while thinking that they are in a capitalistic society. I would say that Americans live a 60% free society. (Rough-percent)

Now, when you say that I have been conditioned by this 60% of choices, I have to agree, because I believe that freedom is like light and truth, I will always seek out more, and more whenever I can.

But if you say that I am conditioned based on living here in America totally 100%, then I would be in agreeance with these social programs and love the security of a program like the FDA. There are other ways, private ways, free-enterprise ways, of accomplishing the true goals of the FDA without it being heavy handed, big brother government. This is what I choose to believe in. I am not conditioned to agree with the FDA.


Also, when you speak of not being able to escape our conditioning, I do agree to a point but to me there is no point in saying that. To me it's like saying "you can't escape being human"...well..yeah. That's true but what's the point..all humans have to be conditioned..they have to be raised. But humans have a free spirit, they have intelligence and can recognize yearnings of their own spriit, even if it's outside of their accepted culture. People living in Mormondom can yearn for higher principles...people living amidst socialism can yearn for liberty.

My spirit will continue to find ways in life to express my freedom to choose...I am my own authority..I choose to participate in society based on my internal beliefs be it religion, political or otherwise and my wish for others is to have the freedom to do the same if they wish.

[why me]

Why me...I'm writing as if you are responding to me also..so I hope you don't mind me replying to this too.

America is probably the most free country on earth, however, it has many socialistic programs and it is not the ideal and free society that you accuse me or any one that lives here in the USA of being conditioned by.

Some examples of American socialism include social security, free public education, the FDA, food stamps, required workmans comp, artificially derived dairy prices, government run railroads, welfare and others. These prompt the usual american to feel safe in these programs while thinking that they are in a capitalistic society. I would say that Americans live a 60% free society. (Rough-percent)

Now, when you say that I have been conditioned by this 60% of choices, I have to agree, because I believe that freedom is like light and truth, I will always seek out more, and more whenever I can.

But if you say that I am conditioned based on living here in America totally 100%, then I would be in agreeance with these social programs and love the security of a program like the FDA. There are other ways, private ways, free-enterprise ways, of accomplishing the true goals of the FDA without it being heavy handed, big brother government. This is what I choose to believe in. I am not conditioned to agree with the FDA.


Also, when you speak of not being able to escape our conditioning, I do agree to a point but to me there is no point in saying that. To me it's like saying "you can't escape being human"...well..yeah. That's true but what's the point..all humans have to be conditioned..they have to be raised. But humans have a free spirit, they have intelligence and can recognize yearnings of their own spriit, even if it's outside of their accepted culture. People living in Mormondom can yearn for higher principles...people living amidst socialism can yearn for liberty.

My spirit will continue to find ways in life to express my freedom to choose...I am my own authority..I choose to participate in society based on my internal beliefs be it religion, political or otherwise and my wish for others is to have the freedom to do the same if they wish.


Thanks dancinfree for your comments. I appreciate your insights in these matters. When I read your post I did see alot of Americanism in it which would confirm some sort of social conditioning. Many Europeans would disagree with you about socialism and big brother. Many Europeans see the social state as an enhancer of freedom and not limiting freedom. I never considered social security to be socialist. I believe that it was put in place in order to protect the capitalist system against socialist thought among the population. After the great depression the political and economic elite knew that in order to preserve power some social programs would need to be introduced but these programs are not socialist. It was the same during President Johnson's Great Society programs which introduced other safeguards into the system. The system was not caring for many of the poor, especially the black poor and Johnson saw that something needed to be done, but again it was designed to protect the capitalist system and not reform it. Socialism is much more than government programs. It is a way of life and a way of doing life. The system is based in the social---in the people as the center of the system. Capitalism is about profit and money and people are a condiment to the system. Socialism is not about handouts. It is about a way of life so that people do not need handouts to live and prosper. However in a social democracy there are more government programs to help people in need...such a system brings are more human face to capitalism but it is still based on private property and free enterprise. There is just more social reforms in a social democracy. In my opinion there is more freedom living in a social democracy. There are more social provisions to care for the needy---universal health care, affordable education and living life with a strong safety net to keep a person from falling through the cracks. Social democracy puts a human face to capitalism but it is not socialism. For me as a man and as a human being, capitalism as made in America is an evil. But this is only my opinion. But if a person is rich and I mean very rich, America is the place to be---even Bush's tax cuts made the richer but the poor received very little benefit at all---such is America and such is capitalism. How many choices can a person living in povery make? How many choices can a person who lives to survive make? Freedom in America is relative. The more money a person has the more freedom that person has to exercise that freedom. Take care in Utah...I hope that the sun is shining today for you...

[dancinfree]

Why me said: " When I read your post I did see alot of Americanism in it which would confirm some sort of social conditioning"

So are you agreeing with my point that as an American, I was raised with socialistic conditioning and yet I have raised above that conditioning and can see the value of a true liberty society?

Why me said: "Many Europeans would disagree with you about socialism and big brother. Many Europeans see the social state as an enhancer of freedom and not limiting freedom. "

I don't care that those whom you speak of have their idea of freedom different from mine. It is not the words that matter but the meaning of the words. When a European mentions free health care they may be talking about freedom. Free health care in my definition is NOT free!



Why me said: "I never considered social security to be socialist. "

Merriam Webster mentions that socialism is " 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". This describes our social security system quite accurately. It is interesting to me that you have not heretofore thought of this as socialist. Especially when it is even in the name!


Why me said: "I believe that it was put in place in order to protect the capitalist system against socialist thought among the population. After the great depression the political and economic elite knew that in order to preserve power some social programs would need to be introduced but these programs are not socialist."
It does not matter why it was put in place. It does not matter what is preserved for later or otherwise, by definition, Social Security is socialistic in nature.


Why me said: " It was the same during President Johnson's Great Society programs which introduced other safeguards into the system. The system was not caring for many of the poor, especially the black poor and Johnson saw that something needed to be done, but again it was designed to protect the capitalist system and not reform it. "

It is not the place of the government to care for the poor . It is the place of the individual and our communities, IMO. Government cannot force people to care. All government can do is force people to pay. That is why I don't like socialism. It is a fake, pseudo-caring system.


Why me said: "Socialism is much more than government programs. It is a way of life and a way of doing life. The system is based in the social---in the people as the center of the system.

I like "principles", not "whim" as a governance.

Why me said: "Capitalism is about profit and money and people are a condiment to the system. Socialism is not about handouts. It is about a way of life so that people do not need handouts to live and prosper. "

These things are in your opinion. IMO, Socialism is about force and not acknowledging the individuals' ability to choose. We disagree on what socialism IS and what capitalism IS. I can say the same things about socialism that you say about capitalism. There is one final test of the two systems. Within a truly free system, a microcosm of socialism could live within. In other words, there could exist a commune that separates itself off from the rest of the capitalist and live communally and be happy in their commune. The other capitalists would not come in to try to force them to pay this amount or that amount or work this thing or that thing. They could do exactly as they chose. On the other hand, within a truly socialist system a small microcosm of libertarianism would not be allowed to exist. They would not even be allowed to have any set of property apart from the greater property. They would be forced to pay for certain programs and expected to go along. This difference in 'tolerance' versus 'forced inclusion' speaks to their nature. I like the human face of 'tolerance' and not the human face of 'force'.




Why me said: "However in a social democracy there are more government programs to help people in need...such a system brings are more human face to capitalism but it is still based on private property and free enterprise. There is just more social reforms in a social democracy. In my opinion there is more freedom living in a social democracy. There are more social provisions to care for the needy---universal health care, affordable education and living life with a strong safety net to keep a person from falling through the cracks. Social democracy puts a human face to capitalism but it is not socialism. For me as a man and as a human being, capitalism as made in America is an evil. But this is only my opinion. But if a person is rich and I mean very rich, America is the place to be---even Bush's tax cuts made the richer but the poor received very little benefit at all---such is America and such is capitalism. How many choices can a person living in povery make? How many choices can a person who lives to survive make? Freedom in America is relative. The more money a person has the more freedom that person has to exercise that freedom."

You are equating freedom with having money and I'm talking about the 'principle' of freedom. I can choose any doctor I particularly want. I might not be able to pay for him but I still choose him. If I can convince that doctor to care for me with a lower price then I'm still FREE. If he denies me service..I'm still FREE. Just because I'm denied service doesn't mean I'm denied freedom. If you, as a socialist, force that doctor to take care of me then that doctor is no longer free. If you, as a socialist, force people X, Y, Z to pay for that doctor then people X,Y, and Z are no longer free. In my estimation socialism creates UNfreedom.

I could continue on this tangent but I recognize that this might not be the best forum for this topic so what I'm saying is that I agree to disagree with you, Why me. Thank you for your input and feedback. The sun is shining and I hope it's shining on you. :)

[why me]

Why me said: " When I read your post I did see alot of Americanism in it which would confirm some sort of social conditioning"

So are you agreeing with my point that as an American, I was raised with socialistic conditioning and yet I have raised above that conditioning and can see the value of a true liberty society?

Why me said: "Many Europeans would disagree with you about socialism and big brother. Many Europeans see the social state as an enhancer of freedom and not limiting freedom. "

I don't care that those whom you speak of have their idea of freedom different from mine. It is not the words that matter but the meaning of the words. When a European mentions free health care they may be talking about freedom. Free health care in my definition is NOT free!



Why me said: "I never considered social security to be socialist. "

Merriam Webster mentions that socialism is " 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". This describes our social security system quite accurately. It is interesting to me that you have not heretofore thought of this as socialist. Especially when it is even in the name!


Why me said: "I believe that it was put in place in order to protect the capitalist system against socialist thought among the population. After the great depression the political and economic elite knew that in order to preserve power some social programs would need to be introduced but these programs are not socialist."
It does not matter why it was put in place. It does not matter what is preserved for later or otherwise, by definition, Social Security is socialistic in nature.


Why me said: " It was the same during President Johnson's Great Society programs which introduced other safeguards into the system. The system was not caring for many of the poor, especially the black poor and Johnson saw that something needed to be done, but again it was designed to protect the capitalist system and not reform it. "

It is not the place of the government to care for the poor . It is the place of the individual and our communities, IMO. Government cannot force people to care. All government can do is force people to pay. That is why I don't like socialism. It is a fake, pseudo-caring system.


Why me said: "Socialism is much more than government programs. It is a way of life and a way of doing life. The system is based in the social---in the people as the center of the system.

I like "principles", not "whim" as a governance.

Why me said: "Capitalism is about profit and money and people are a condiment to the system. Socialism is not about handouts. It is about a way of life so that people do not need handouts to live and prosper. "

These things are in your opinion. IMO, Socialism is about force and not acknowledging the individuals' ability to choose. We disagree on what socialism IS and what capitalism IS. I can say the same things about socialism that you say about capitalism. There is one final test of the two systems. Within a truly free system, a microcosm of socialism could live within. In other words, there could exist a commune that separates itself off from the rest of the capitalist and live communally and be happy in their commune. The other capitalists would not come in to try to force them to pay this amount or that amount or work this thing or that thing. They could do exactly as they chose. On the other hand, within a truly socialist system a small microcosm of libertarianism would not be allowed to exist. They would not even be allowed to have any set of property apart from the greater property. They would be forced to pay for certain programs and expected to go along. This difference in 'tolerance' versus 'forced inclusion' speaks to their nature. I like the human face of 'tolerance' and not the human face of 'force'.




Why me said: "However in a social democracy there are more government programs to help people in need...such a system brings are more human face to capitalism but it is still based on private property and free enterprise. There is just more social reforms in a social democracy. In my opinion there is more freedom living in a social democracy. There are more social provisions to care for the needy---universal health care, affordable education and living life with a strong safety net to keep a person from falling through the cracks. Social democracy puts a human face to capitalism but it is not socialism. For me as a man and as a human being, capitalism as made in America is an evil. But this is only my opinion. But if a person is rich and I mean very rich, America is the place to be---even Bush's tax cuts made the richer but the poor received very little benefit at all---such is America and such is capitalism. How many choices can a person living in povery make? How many choices can a person who lives to survive make? Freedom in America is relative. The more money a person has the more freedom that person has to exercise that freedom."

You are equating freedom with having money and I'm talking about the 'principle' of freedom. I can choose any doctor I particularly want. I might not be able to pay for him but I still choose him. If I can convince that doctor to care for me with a lower price then I'm still FREE. If he denies me service..I'm still FREE. Just because I'm denied service doesn't mean I'm denied freedom. If you, as a socialist, force that doctor to take care of me then that doctor is no longer free. If you, as a socialist, force people X, Y, Z to pay for that doctor then people X,Y, and Z are no longer free. In my estimation socialism creates UNfreedom.

I could continue on this tangent but I recognize that this might not be the best forum for this topic so what I'm saying is that I agree to disagree with you, Why me. Thank you for your input and feedback. The sun is shining and I hope it's shining on you. :)


Wow dancinfree you made some great points. I needed you as my opponent when I gave my doctoral defense. We have had a pleasant conversation about socialism, capitalism and doing life. I appreciate your comments very much. I suppose I have my personal experiences with the system. In regards to health care, in Europe there is a choice between public, private or through your work organization. I have my experiences with this system. And I never had worries about being sick or being hospitalized. It was all affordable. 45 million americans are without health care insurance and many more have very poor health care benefits...I don't think that it is right to live in fear of being sick. Can I recommend a book for you? It is Erich Fromm's 'The Sane Society'. The book was written many years ago but it is still interesting and valuable from a humanist point of view. It is a wonderful book and you can just skim though it and see what you think. I really appreciate your thoughts but we will not see eye to eye on this one. For me, capitalism will be entwined with the notion of 'evil'...what to do with a red dinosaur? Are we still friends...?? Take care dancinfree...I enjoy debating with you...and to have conversations with you also....

[miss taken]

Gosh, what a difficult subject.

Are there good and evil systems?

I suppose the same argument that applies to us as individuals could apply to systems??

There is good in very bad systems, and bad in good ones if that makes sense.

And a good system may be managed by bad people, and a bad system may be managed by good people.

I suppose the best system would give the greatest opportunity to all its citizens, and would take care of its sick, vulnerable, poor, needy.

We are not born equal in any sense of the word, other than we all breathe, need food, water, shelter and love. Whether we get that is another matter.

I think the importance of education has always been noted in any society, the fact that the British class system has been greatly watered down (based on inherited wealth and capitalism) thanks mostly to having a quality free at point of consumption, education for all.

Religion CAN be an opiate to society particularly if it gives a religious reason for maintaining a status quo, no matter how bad/good that status quo is???

I think there is great injustice in the world.
The famous Bob Geldof has just said that he cant understand why 100s of 1000s of children die in Africa through disease and starvation, in a world of surplus.

The US refuses to sign the Kyoto agreement? They want to keep their economy going, I wonder if they will be so generous to India and China who have the fastest growing economies, and will become big consumers of the world's natural resources.

I believe that the US gov has a very patronising view of the rest of the world. It is utterly selfish!! and self-serving. America is such a vast and beautiful country that unless people have lived outside of the US for a while it is easy to become completely inward looking in my opinion. The UK is similarly interested foremost in protecting its own interests, most countries are. It is balancing its own interests with those of the rest of the world that is the great difficulty. I think that is one of the greatest challenges as we become globalised.

Capitalism in the US and here in UK was founded in part, on blood, greed, and selfishness. Let's be honest. Yet communism was founded on the same.

Oh dear...
No easy answers.

Mary

[templenamesarah]

I believe that the US gov has a very patronising view of the rest of the world. It is utterly selfish!! and self-serving.




I think you had some wonderful comments, but I must disagree strongly with your sentiment quoted above. Of course, I am an American and have the standard accompanying bias, so who knows? The USA gives more generously than any other nation on earth to other nations in need. In fact, the US gives more than most other nations combined. In addition to the official aid given by the US government, the citizens from their own pockets contribute massive amounts in charity to world causes.

[miss taken]

I think you had some wonderful comments, but I must disagree strongly with your sentiment quoted above. Of course, I am an American and have the standard accompanying bias, so who knows? The USA gives more generously than any other nation on earth to other nations in need. In fact, the US gives more than most other nations combined. In addition to the official aid given by the US government, the citizens from their own pockets contribute massive amounts in charity to world causes.

Sorry Nancy, I just had to put that one in because I knew someone would bite!!!!

I think however compared to the wealth of the average American, and compared to the GNP the US actually gives very little. So I think you are quoting a commonly held fallacy...

I'm not saying the Brits are any better though, so I did add the UK on my list of criticism!!!!

It's an issue of the fair distribution of wealth.

The Brits started off Concentration camps in SA. We during the empire period sucked other countries of their natural resources. I think you will find that the US have done the same. I suspect the real reason for the invasion of Iraq is to make use of their oil.

Cyprus was invaded by Turkey, no body even blinked, including the Americans, because it wasn't in their best self-serving interest to do so.

I am not saying that good things aren't done, or that individuals don't donate. I think the Brits put the US to shame for instance on their donations to the Asian Tsunami. (another one put in for bate...sorry couldn't help myself). But there is a terrible paradox, that we were born in relatively wealthy countries, living our own little lives, oblivious to the horror that everyday goes on around us. What to do....what to do.....

Wonder what will happen when G8 meets...wonder if 3rd world debt will be wiped out...?????

No easy answers!!!
Mary

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

Note that countries promised to give .7 and none have met. Interestingly, only in the last year has the US moved up from last place (compared to GNP) beating only Italy. Pretty awful really, don't you think!!

[why me]

Gosh, what a difficult subject.

Are there good and evil systems?

I suppose the same argument that applies to us as individuals could apply to systems??

There is good in very bad systems, and bad in good ones if that makes sense.

And a good system may be managed by bad people, and a bad system may be managed by good people.

I suppose the best system would give the greatest opportunity to all its citizens, and would take care of its sick, vulnerable, poor, needy.

We are not born equal in any sense of the word, other than we all breathe, need food, water, shelter and love. Whether we get that is another matter.

I think the importance of education has always been noted in any society, the fact that the British class system has been greatly watered down (based on inherited wealth and capitalism) thanks mostly to having a quality free at point of consumption, education for all.

Religion CAN be an opiate to society particularly if it gives a religious reason for maintaining a status quo, no matter how bad/good that status quo is???

I think there is great injustice in the world.
The famous Bob Geldof has just said that he cant understand why 100s of 1000s of children die in Africa through disease and starvation, in a world of surplus.

The US refuses to sign the Kyoto agreement? They want to keep their economy going, I wonder if they will be so generous to India and China who have the fastest growing economies, and will become big consumers of the world's natural resources.

I believe that the US gov has a very patronising view of the rest of the world. It is utterly selfish!! and self-serving. America is such a vast and beautiful country that unless people have lived outside of the US for a while it is easy to become completely inward looking in my opinion. The UK is similarly interested foremost in protecting its own interests, most countries are. It is balancing its own interests with those of the rest of the world that is the great difficulty. I think that is one of the greatest challenges as we become globalised.

Capitalism in the US and here in UK was founded in part, on blood, greed, and selfishness. Let's be honest. Yet communism was founded on the same.

Oh dear...
No easy answers.

Mary

Thank you for your comments. I hoped that I would find some understanding with a European-minded individual. I think that you were correct in your post and thank you for your open mindedness about the issue. I think that the key to it all is when people begin to use their sociological imagination and begin to take steps out their own lived reality and try to see the world anew. The sociological imagination was best described by Mills and Anthony Giddens. We also IMO need to take a critical look into how societies are developing (especially the societies in which we live) and if injustice is present we need to struggle and fight against that injustice. America is definitely an 'island' surrounded by water...and very inward looking....

[dancinfree]

Gosh, what a difficult subject.

Are there good and evil systems?

I suppose the same argument that applies to us as individuals could apply to systems??

There is good in very bad systems, and bad in good ones if that makes sense.

And a good system may be managed by bad people, and a bad system may be managed by good people.

I suppose the best system would give the greatest opportunity to all its citizens, and would take care of its sick, vulnerable, poor, needy.

I totally agree with you Miss Taken. This type of system would be heaven. I think where the differences show up is on HOW to implement such a society as a whole.



I believe that the US gov has a very patronising view of the rest of the world. It is utterly selfish!! and self-serving. America is such a vast and beautiful country that unless people have lived outside of the US for a while it is easy to become completely inward looking in my opinion. The UK is similarly interested foremost in protecting its own interests, most countries are. It is balancing its own interests with those of the rest of the world that is the great difficulty. I think that is one of the greatest challenges as we become globalised.

This is why I believe that the beliefs that I hold personally for me as an individual fits perfectly as a society. I can look at this on a huge society landscape or I can take this into my own life. As I am truthful with myself and I hope others are too..I am completely self-serving , just like the systems we live in. Not because I live in the "evil" capitalistic society but because I believe this is a universal commonality of all people. We are all looking out for number one,ourselves... and that's great...I would want for nothing else IMO. All I do, if I dare dig deep enough, is for myself. There is a kind of satisfaction or reward of some kind in it for me, whether the action is looked upon as selfless or selfish...I still attain some reward, whether it be power, pleasure, or the belief that I am "selfless". I can look at others and deem them selfish which justifies my own selfishness.

I try to create balance in my life..just like societies and countries do. If I expect my country to be different...all loving..giving...selfless..I MUST look at myself first..internalize before I can expect external change. But I would Hate anyone Forcing me to change because it wouldn't be "real" and that's why I am so passionate about a system of liberty for myself and all those around me.

Capitalism in the US and here in UK was founded in part, on blood, greed, and selfishness. Let's be honest. Yet communism was founded on the same.

Absolutely!! All types of systems are based on these aspects and so many more, not just the negative looking ones but the positives one are also a part of it all. It would be so much easier and nice to say..YUP, this one system is based on only the "bad" parts and this system is based on the "good" parts..just like it would be easy to classify people as such but life isin't so black and white. Systems aren't so black and white...spirituality isn't so black and white. It's much more then the surface appearance and just like my search for understanding and compassion with myself and with others, my hope is to look at all systems with the same eyes that I individually strive to see in my little ole world that I live in.

Isin't complexity so much fun? Gotta luv it baby!! Thanks for you post...it's such a joy to read your posts!!

[why me]

I totally agree with you Miss Taken. This type of system would be heaven. I think where the differences show up is on HOW to implement such a society as a whole.





This is why I believe that the beliefs that I hold personally for me as an individual fits perfectly as a society. I can look at this on a huge society landscape or I can take this into my own life. As I am truthful with myself and I hope others are too..I am completely self-serving , just like the systems we live in. Not because I live in the "evil" capitalistic society but because I believe this is a universal commonality of all people. We are all looking out for number one,ourselves... and that's great...I would want for nothing else IMO. All I do, if I dare dig deep enough, is for myself. There is a kind of satisfaction or reward of some kind in it for me, whether the action is looked upon as selfless or selfish...I still attain some reward, whether it be power, pleasure, or the belief that I am "selfless". I can look at others and deem them selfish which justifies my own selfishness.

I try to create balance in my life..just like societies and countries do. If I expect my country to be different...all loving..giving...selfless..I MUST look at myself first..internalize before I can expect external change. But I would Hate anyone Forcing me to change because it wouldn't be "real" and that's why I am so passionate about a system of liberty for myself and all those around me.



Absolutely!! All types of systems are based on these aspects and so many more, not just the negative looking ones but the positives one are also a part of it all. It would be so much easier and nice to say..YUP, this one system is based on only the "bad" parts and this system is based on the "good" parts..just like it would be easy to classify people as such but life isin't so black and white. Systems aren't so black and white...spirituality isn't so black and white. It's much more then the surface appearance and just like my search for understanding and compassion with myself and with others, my hope is to look at all systems with the same eyes that I individually strive to see in my little ole world that I live in.

Isin't complexity so much fun? Gotta luv it baby!! Thanks for you post...it's such a joy to read your posts!!


I think that the basic difference between you and me is that you see society through individual acts and I see society through collective acts. But I suppose that if we are both trying to make the world a good place to be...this is what is important for human development, regardless of differing views. But you know dancinfree I just cannot agree with your logic but that is what makes the world such an interesting place---differences of opinion about comlex issues... :)

[dancinfree]

Wow dancinfree you made some great points. I needed you as my opponent when I gave my doctoral defense. We have had a pleasant conversation about socialism, capitalism and doing life. I appreciate your comments very much. I suppose I have my personal experiences with the system. In regards to health care, in Europe there is a choice between public, private or through your work organization. I have my experiences with this system. And I never had worries about being sick or being hospitalized. It was all affordable. 45 million americans are without health care insurance and many more have very poor health care benefits...I don't think that it is right to live in fear of being sick. Can I recommend a book for you? It is Erich Fromm's 'The Sane Society'. The book was written many years ago but it is still interesting and valuable from a humanist point of view. It is a wonderful book and you can just skim though it and see what you think. I really appreciate your thoughts but we will not see eye to eye on this one. For me, capitalism will be entwined with the notion of 'evil'...what to do with a red dinosaur? Are we still friends...?? Take care dancinfree...I enjoy debating with you...and to have conversations with you also....

Hi Why me...anytime you want to masturbate...oops, I mean..debate...I'm here..hehehe. Thanks for the compliment about being your opponent..makes me warm inside..especially considering I'm taking a history class tomorrow...it's a political science course. The teacher is a lawyer and a lobbiest (sp?), so I'm looking forward to digging into that! I just started going back to college this last year..been off for about twenty years..it's so much fun to go back, now that I can appreciate learning better. Thanks for the recommendation about the book, "the sane society"..I will try to get my hands on that one. I consider myself a libertarian (though I'm not one of the nutjobs, as dogzilla imagines..hehehe...or maybe I am..hmm.) So liberty is my passion not so much captialism persay and my "evil" is anything that takes away my freedom to choose, whether it's individually or societal. Of course, I don't believe in "evil", just ineffectiveness.

Thanks for the discussions and debates...it's always good to get the heart a pumpin every now and then. I can see nothing but being a friend to you. You allow me into your heart and mind and for that I grow and learn. It's always a pleasure with you.

Keep it coming... :)

[why me]

Hi Why me...anytime you want to masturbate...oops, I mean..debate...I'm here..hehehe. Thanks for the compliment about being your opponent..makes me warm inside..especially considering I'm taking a history class tomorrow...it's a political science course. The teacher is a lawyer and a lobbiest (sp?), so I'm looking forward to digging into that! I just started going back to college this last year..been off for about twenty years..it's so much fun to go back, now that I can appreciate learning better. Thanks for the recommendation about the book, "the sane society"..I will try to get my hands on that one. I consider myself a libertarian (though I'm not one of the nutjobs, as dogzilla imagines..hehehe...or maybe I am..hmm.) So liberty is my passion not so much captialism persay and my "evil" is anything that takes away my freedom to choose, whether it's individually or societal. Of course, I don't believe in "evil", just ineffectiveness.

Thanks for the discussions and debates...it's always good to get the heart a pumpin every now and then. I can see nothing but being a friend to you. You allow me into your heart and mind and for that I grow and learn. It's always a pleasure with you.

Keep it coming... :)

Hey we seem to be soul mates! I just posted a similiar response to you. It is great that you are going back to college---it will deepen the mind, if you allow yourself the opportunity to reflect and question the knowledge learned. Who knows maybe you will get a radical socialist for a professor and you will join the club! I sensed that you were a libertarian. The Sane Society was written many years ago but what Eric Fromm says about capitalism is right on target, in my opinion. Oh by the way, I great American academic socialist journal can be found on this website: www.monthlyreview.org Many left-wing Marxist professors contribute to the journal and what I like about the texts is that they are easy to comprehend. Remember dancinfree: open mind--open sky. :) A libertarian can need some doses of socialism every now and then.
My mind is working class mind and so I need academic texts that are understandable. I am not really academic, regardless of my education. Take care...

[miss taken]

Just thinking, that even liberty and freedom of choice have to have limits and constraints otherwise we have total anarchy?????

We pay up to 40% tax over here. We don't have a choice, and maybe because of my selfishness I wouldn't choose to give up 40% of our income if I had the choice.

So the choice has been made for me, for the common good. It's one choice that I am happy to have taken away from me. I am okay with the fact that we give 40% of our income for the common good if that makes sense.

Even liberty has its limits..imo...

Good discussion by the way, thanks for roping me into it Why me....

Mary

[why me]

Just thinking, that even liberty and freedom of choice have to have limits and constraints otherwise we have total anarchy?????

We pay up to 40% tax over here. We don't have a choice, and maybe because of my selfishness I wouldn't choose to give up 40% of our income if I had the choice.

So the choice has been made for me, for the common good. It's one choice that I am happy to have taken away from me. I am okay with the fact that we give 40% of our income for the common good if that makes sense.

Even liberty has its limits..imo...

Good discussion by the way, thanks for roping me into it Why me....

Mary

I knew that you were a welfare bum like me :D . I think Miss Taken that Americans have the wrong idea about what a welfare state actually is. American in general equate welfare handouts. This is not a welfare state but it is a 'helpfare' state. The welfare state was disigned to eliminate the worst evils of capitalism by assuring work, health care, equal and affordable education for the masses and a decent standard of living for the population. The tax system is progressive thereby stressing social harmony and not discord. The main concern of the welfare state was not handouts to the lazy but rather basic security and economic equality among the general population. Americans have much to learn about the genuine inner workings of the wefare state. Of course now wefare states are concerned with social cohesion and social justice. The welfare state is becoming more of a helpfare state and here lies the west european problem. Of course Maggie Thatcher gutted the British system as has Tony Blair but at least new labour pays some lip service to the common good. I can respect dancinfree for her liberatarian views but I don't think that they are practical on a government level...perhaps on a n individual level it can work---you know the american slogans: 'Live free or die'....'Don't thread on me'...'Give me liberty or give me death' etc, etc.
But I could never understand the mormon conservative mentality as found in Utah and throughout the USA. It is as if the LDS community totally overlook the cooperative nature of the book of mormon in some sections. Life was much more righteous when the common was stressed at the expense of difference. What did Che or Fidel say? Oh yea... *Socialismo o muerte'. I think from the spanish it means: Socialism or death! But lets live a little yet Miss Taken!! :)

[miss taken]

Maybe the welfare state over here and over there mean entirely different things.

I personally believe that health and education (with good quality) should be available to all no matter what their background is.

Sometimes people become homeless, orphaned, widowed, frail, elderly, and need help. Should they be denied help by the system, because in the words of Neil Tebbit they should 'be getting on their bikes'???



If people become unemployed then they should get help.
They are not getting something for nothing because they have paid into the system to protect against those kind of eventualities. So imo they are NOT getting hand-outs.

Of course there will always be those who abuse the system. But then there always have been people who will abuse any system, be it capitalism or socialism. So not a good reason to not have a welfare state. (was that a double negative there??)

Mary

[dancinfree]

I knew that you were a welfare bum like me :D . I think Miss Taken that Americans have the wrong idea about what a welfare state actually is. American in general equate welfare handouts. This is not a welfare state but it is a 'helpfare' state. The welfare state was disigned to eliminate the worst evils of capitalism by assuring work, health care, equal and affordable education for the masses and a decent standard of living for the population. The tax system is progressive thereby stressing social harmony and not discord. The main concern of the welfare state was not handouts to the lazy but rather basic security and economic equality among the general population. Americans have much to learn about the genuine inner workings of the wefare state. Of course now wefare states are concerned with social cohesion and social justice. The welfare state is becoming more of a helpfare state and here lies the west european problem. Of course Maggie Thatcher gutted the British system as has Tony Blair but at least new labour pays some lip service to the common good. I can respect dancinfree for her liberatarian views but I don't think that they are practical on a government level...perhaps on a n individual level it can work---you know the american slogans: 'Live free or die'....'Don't thread on me'...'Give me liberty or give me death' etc, etc.
But I could never understand the mormon conservative mentality as found in Utah and throughout the USA. It is as if the LDS community totally overlook the cooperative nature of the book of mormon in some sections. Life was much more righteous when the common was stressed at the expense of difference. What did Che or Fidel say? Oh yea... *Socialismo o muerte'. I think from the spanish it means: Socialism or death! But lets live a little yet Miss Taken!! :)

Hey why me,

I just attended my political science class and It was great!! One of the things I learned today is that it all boils down to the answer to the question of, "What is the purpose of Government?". There are three answers to that question. 1. Provide order and protection. 2. provide public goods and 3. Promote equality. How these questions are answered and defined separate you and I. Where I believe the government needs to be present and how the government shows up in my life is very different from yours. I believe there is no one right way or wrong way to do things..it's much too complicated of a system for that. Libertarianism can work if all agree on these answers and seek other solutions privately instead of governmentally but that's where it gets messy...not everyone agrees on the basics. I agree that there is a cooperative type of teaching in the BoM and I wholeheartedly love it as long as each individual has the freedom to enter into it or out of it, without force (like my previous post about groups and living within groups) Even though I feel myself as a libertarian, I also welcome other systems that can be used without forcing everybody to follow it if they don't choose to. So, I just wanted to share with you a little bit of what I'm learning thus far....and YES, the teacher and I are going to have FUN!! hehehe.

[miss taken]

I should kind of say that while we pay up to 40% tax over here, it is stepped. So the first £4895 is free then you pay 10% on the next bit, then 33.3% on the next, till £32,000. and anything you earn over £32,000 you pay 40% tax. But council tax is separate, as is VAT at 17.5% on goods and services, and of course all the hidden taxes in petrol, cigarettes, alchohol.
We also pay licence on TV!

Death duties currently stand at 40% over £268,000.

Petrol is currently 89-92 per litre. Most of the cost is tax.



I guess in a way I voted for Whoever, through the democratic process, and with it I voted for their policies, including their tax law.

I did take politics years back during the Thatcher years
but would be interested to read of what you learn Dancinfree! Sounds interesting.


Take care everyone
Mary

[why me]

Hey why me,

I just attended my political science class and It was great!! One of the things I learned today is that it all boils down to the answer to the question of, "What is the purpose of Government?". There are three answers to that question. 1. Provide order and protection. 2. provide public goods and 3. Promote equality. How these questions are answered and defined separate you and I. Where I believe the government needs to be present and how the government shows up in my life is very different from yours. I believe there is no one right way or wrong way to do things..it's much too complicated of a system for that. Libertarianism can work if all agree on these answers and seek other solutions privately instead of governmentally but that's where it gets messy...not everyone agrees on the basics. I agree that there is a cooperative type of teaching in the BoM and I wholeheartedly love it as long as each individual has the freedom to enter into it or out of it, without force (like my previous post about groups and living within groups) Even though I feel myself as a libertarian, I also welcome other systems that can be used without forcing everybody to follow it if they don't choose to. So, I just wanted to share with you a little bit of what I'm learning thus far....and YES, the teacher and I are going to have FUN!! hehehe.


I will need to get back to you on this one. My internet time is running out...the store is closing. I do not have a computer at home and so I depend on libraries and internet outlets. I think that after your political science course I will be calling you comrade. Umm...how does this sound---comrade Dancinfree...I think that it sounds great. We need a socialist organizer in Utah....!!!!

[dancinfree]

I will need to get back to you on this one. My internet time is running out...the store is closing. I do not have a computer at home and so I depend on libraries and internet outlets. I think that after your political science course I will be calling you comrade. Umm...how does this sound---comrade Dancinfree...I think that it sounds great. We need a socialist organizer in Utah....!!!!

Now, that DOES deserve a hearty laugh...HAHAHAHA!! I can count on you to keep me smiling...Have a great day! :D

[why me]

I should kind of say that while we pay up to 40% tax over here, it is stepped. So the first £4895 is free then you pay 10% on the next bit, then 33.3% on the next, till £32,000. and anything you earn over £32,000 you pay 40% tax. But council tax is separate, as is VAT at 17.5% on goods and services, and of course all the hidden taxes in petrol, cigarettes, alchohol.
We also pay licence on TV!

Death duties currently stand at 40% over £268,000.

Petrol is currently 89-92 per litre. Most of the cost is tax.



I guess in a way I voted for Whoever, through the democratic process, and with it I voted for their policies, including their tax law.

I did take politics years back during the Thatcher years
but would be interested to read of what you learn Dancinfree! Sounds interesting.


Take care everyone
Mary

I am afraid miss taken that I was poor at math. Can you please translate this into the 'presidents' English so that I can follow what you are saying? What is the average salary in the UK? Do people survive on beans and toast? Now lets see 40% tax plus the pound structure and the tax law says...oh forget it...I just can't get it... :D :confused:

[why me]

Hey why me,

I just attended my political science class and It was great!! One of the things I learned today is that it all boils down to the answer to the question of, "What is the purpose of Government?". There are three answers to that question. 1. Provide order and protection. 2. provide public goods and 3. Promote equality. How these questions are answered and defined separate you and I. Where I believe the government needs to be present and how the government shows up in my life is very different from yours. I believe there is no one right way or wrong way to do things..it's much too complicated of a system for that. Libertarianism can work if all agree on these answers and seek other solutions privately instead of governmentally but that's where it gets messy...not everyone agrees on the basics. I agree that there is a cooperative type of teaching in the BoM and I wholeheartedly love it as long as each individual has the freedom to enter into it or out of it, without force (like my previous post about groups and living within groups) Even though I feel myself as a libertarian, I also welcome other systems that can be used without forcing everybody to follow it if they don't choose to. So, I just wanted to share with you a little bit of what I'm learning thus far....and YES, the teacher and I are going to have FUN!! hehehe.

I am sure that you and your teacher will have fun...just make sure that it is in the book and not on the desk! heheheheh...oh let me make this laugh more masculine hahahahha. But...dancinfree aren't you forced into following the system that you are currently following? What opt out solutions are there? Most people blindly follow their economic structure until they are convinced that it is no longer working for them. I look forward to more learning from your course. It sounds like you have a good teacher. Did you comment on the equality part in class. Don't be afraid to mention my name. For example you can say: Teacher, why_me said that we have less equality in the USA, if this is true would this mean that the American government is being delelict in governing? Remember you can always mention why_me in class as a reference source! :D

[dancinfree]

I am sure that you and your teacher will have fun...just make sure that it is in the book and not on the desk! heheheheh...oh let me make this laugh more masculine hahahahha. But...dancinfree aren't you forced into following the system that you are currently following? What opt out solutions are there? Most people blindly follow their economic structure until they are convinced that it is no longer working for them. I look forward to more learning from your course. It sounds like you have a good teacher. Did you comment on the equality part in class. Don't be afraid to mention my name. For example you can say: Teacher, why_me said that we have less equality in the USA, if this is true would this mean that the American government is being delelict in governing? Remember you can always mention why_me in class as a reference source! :D

I guess that's what life is all about..spiritually and economically, unconciously going through life and experiences and running into walls...coming into awareness about what does and does not work. I have found that I love the principle of freedom to choose over safety and equality, so I stay away, as much as I can with any programs that support forced equality.

I live in a high-risk area..meaning, low income housing..HUD homes...stuff like that...free lunch programs, food stamps, free health care for families. In fact, my husband and I qualify for all those things and I would never, EVER, use them. I home school my children and I still pay for everybody else's kids to go to school with my taxes...it's all about choosing as much as I can with the freedom I do have and sucking up to the "have to's. Who pays for my kid's education?....I don't rely on everybody else...we suck it up and actually take responsibility for that..go figure..what a concept huh? We each are born unequal and trying to force equality for everybody is, IMO, evil. Instead, I look at myself as a doer and not some poor victim that cries for equality, or I would have been cryin for 39 years now!!

The reason we qualify for all those social programs is because my husband is a math teacher for the public schools here (that pays dirt) and I choose to stay home. He is an Electrical Engineer and a computer programmer (private business paid well) but a couple of years ago, decided to follow his passion for teaching. If we were truly capitalistic, we would choose to work for some huge company and make four times what we make now and I would work outside the home too ..but screw that! We wouldn't see each other that much and the travel isisn't worth it but that's been OUR choice. It's not my place to tell other people to do what we do. They deserve there own freedom to choose. It would be nice if the government paid it's teachers better but that's asking too much from such an overburden system.

In my class, we did touch on the aspect of equality...I can't wait for more..it's so fun. I will definitely bring you up in class, don't worry about that...HAHAHAHA!! I feel some testosterone coming out of me!! :p I look forward to your next post with capitalistic greed.... :D

[why me]

I guess that's what life is all about..spiritually and economically, unconciously going through life and experiences and running into walls...coming into awareness about what does and does not work. I have found that I love the principle of freedom to choose over safety and equality, so I stay away, as much as I can with any programs that support forced equality.

I live in a high-risk area..meaning, low income housing..HUD homes...stuff like that...free lunch programs, food stamps, free health care for families. In fact, my husband and I qualify for all those things and I would never, EVER, use them. I home school my children and I still pay for everybody else's kids to go to school with my taxes...it's all about choosing as much as I can with the freedom I do have and sucking up to the "have to's. Who pays for my kid's education?....I don't rely on everybody else...we suck it up and actually take responsibility for that..go figure..what a concept huh? We each are born unequal and trying to force equality for everybody is, IMO, evil. Instead, I look at myself as a doer and not some poor victim that cries for equality, or I would have been cryin for 39 years now!!

The reason we qualify for all those social programs is because my husband is a math teacher for the public schools here (that pays dirt) and I choose to stay home. He is an Electrical Engineer and a computer programmer (private business paid well) but a couple of years ago, decided to follow his passion for teaching. If we were truly capitalistic, we would choose to work for some huge company and make four times what we make now and I would work outside the home too ..but screw that! We wouldn't see each other that much and the travel isisn't worth it but that's been OUR choice. It's not my place to tell other people to do what we do. They deserve there own freedom to choose. It would be nice if the government paid it's teachers better but that's asking too much from such an overburden system.

In my class, we did touch on the aspect of equality...I can't wait for more..it's so fun. I will definitely bring you up in class, don't worry about that...HAHAHAHA!! I feel some testosterone coming out of me!! :p I look forward to your next post with capitalistic greed.... :D


Dancinfree! I will get back to you on your post. Right now I want to go home and watch 'Shield'. It is a police show on TV. Take care in sunny Utah...I hope the weather is nice...my children are heading to St. George today. How is the weather out there?? Have fun and stay off the teacher's desk. No 'dancinfree' in the classroom! :)

[Born Free]

<snip>

We each are born unequal and trying to force equality for everybody is, IMO, evil. Instead, I look at myself as a doer and not some poor victim that cries for equality, or I would have been cryin for 39 years now!!

The reason we qualify for all those social programs is because my husband is a math teacher for the public schools here (that pays dirt) and I choose to stay home. He is an Electrical Engineer and a computer programmer (private business paid well) but a couple of years ago, decided to follow his passion for teaching. If we were truly capitalistic, we would choose to work for some huge company and make four times what we make now and I would work outside the home too ..but screw that! We wouldn't see each other that much and the travel isn't worth it but that's been OUR choice. It's not my place to tell other people to do what we do. They deserve there own freedom to choose. It would be nice if the government paid it's teachers better but that's asking too much from such an overburden system.

In my class, we did touch on the aspect of equality...I can't wait for more..it's so fun. I will definitely bring you up in class, don't worry about that...HAHAHAHA!! I feel some testosterone coming out of me!! :p I look forward to your next post with capitalistic greed.... :D

dancinfree,

In my experience a lot of crap is talked about equality without thinkning through its implications.

The USSR did more to promise equality to its citizens and promote their 'rights' to all sorts of things. Did it deliver?

When 'rights' start to include (uncritically) the notion of rights to housing, education, a standard of living etc, few people ask "And who pays for this free?".

A right of equality before the law and in voting is valid and logically sound, but much beyond that means one persons 'free' is another's coerced contribution or theft in moral terms.

Yet a lot of wooly discussion of 'rights' persists without much logic to back it up.

This country has a good, but declining public health system. We have popular free-to-air TV running stories about people who have a 'right' to multi-million dollar medical machines, and very expensive operations. They cover individuals who need $100,000 operations, as if they have a 'right' to same.

What the hell would happen if everyone needed one of those? The countrys economy would grind to a halt. We are spending more and more on people in the last 5 years of their life, meanwhile good early life health care gets neglected, and interventions that could break the poverty and bad-health cycle go begging.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that line of reasoning is unsustainable.

Daryl

PS: I am with you for libertarianism. I believe the world woudl be a far more sustainable place on many dimensions if we followed its dictum: No man has the right to initiate force, fraud of coersion against any other man or group of men.

[dancinfree]

dancinfree,

In my experience a lot of crap is talked about equality without thinkning through its implications.

The USSR did more to promise equality to its citizens and promote their 'rights' to all sorts of things. Did it deliver?

When 'rights' start to include (uncritically) the notion of rights to housing, education, a standard of living etc, few people ask "And who pays for this free?".

A right of equality before the law and in voting is valid and logically sound, but much beyond that means one persons 'free' is another's coerced contribution or theft in moral terms.

Yet a lot of wooly discussion of 'rights' persists without much logic to back it up.

This country has a good, but declining public health system. We have popular free-to-air TV running stories about people who have a 'right' to multi-million dollar medical machines, and very expensive operations. They cover individuals who need $100,000 operations, as if they have a 'right' to same.

What the hell would happen if everyone needed one of those? The countrys economy would grind to a halt. We are spending more and more on people in the last 5 years of their life, meanwhile good early life health care gets neglected, and interventions that could break the poverty and bad-health cycle go begging.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that line of reasoning is unsustainable.

Daryl

PS: I am with you for libertarianism. I believe the world woudl be a far more sustainable place on many dimensions if we followed its dictum: No man has the right to initiate force, fraud of coersion against any other man or group of men.

may I add.."against any other man or group of men, regardless of how Moral, or Right, it seems."

Born Free...wow, finally a voice of reason..hehehe. Seriously, thanks for backing me up, it's nice to know I'm not all alone in my logic or feelings...I was starting to wonder if my views were frightening people or something....thanks for sharing...big hug from me, even though you really didn't ask that of me. I appreciate your point of view.

[Born Free]

may I add.."against any other man or group of men, regardless of how Moral, or Right, it seems."

Born Free...wow, finally a voice of reason..hehehe. Seriously, thanks for backing me up, it's nice to know I'm not all alone in my logic or feelings...I was starting to wonder if my views were frightening people or something....thanks for sharing...big hug from me, even though you really didn't ask that of me. I appreciate your point of view.
Dancinfree,

Agreed! My rights do not extend to playing moral policeman to my neighbour, unless he is using 'force, fraud or coersion'. I cannot dictate his religion, but then again religions would get no better tax break than bowling or chess clubs!

So he can't sexually abuse his/her spouse, kids, but if they fancy having the football team over for some rumble on Saturday night, that is their business. Mind you, if they contract something nasty, that is also their business to get fixed, and at their expense.

So politicians who 'buy' office would be as answerable for their fraud as anyone else.

Daryl

[Born Free]

<snip>

The main concern of the welfare state was not handouts to the lazy but rather basic security and economic equality among the general population. Americans have much to learn about the genuine inner workings of the wefare state. Of course now wefare states are concerned with social cohesion and social justice. The welfare state is becoming more of a helpfare state and here lies the west european problem. Of course Maggie Thatcher gutted the British system as has Tony Blair but at least new labour pays some lip service to the common good. I can respect dancinfree for her liberatarian views but I don't think that they are practical on a government level...perhaps on a n individual level it can work---you know the american slogans: 'Live free or die'....'Don't thread on me'...'Give me liberty or give me death' etc, etc.
<snip>


why me,

You seem to read different history books to me. I lived the last half of last century, and if there is a viable example of communism anywhere on the planet, I am not aware of it. Sure there are plenty of examples of 'capitalist' countries that have their problems, but I am not aware of any that have the extent of problems evident in the communist states.

USSR, China, North Korea, Cambodia have all tried and failed spectacularly. The French experiement got off the rails early as it centralised power and evidenced the abuse and loss of life in the millions that came to foreshadow what would occur in all the other communist states..

I am interested in the spectacular communist successes that fuel your optomism, that I have overlooked. Mormonism and the United Order was another example of how the theory was at great disparity with the actuality.

I have a good friend who was very politically active in in resisting Thatcher's England as Thatcher set out to destroy the coal unions. Whilst still not being a raving capitalist, my friend has no difficulty acknowledging that the Labor socialist state that preceded her was unsustainable and offered few sustainable solutions to society at large.

Communism, IMHO, has always been romantic, appealing greatly to those who had a problem with opening their eyes and seeing what its legacy was on the ground. Orwell looked first hand, and wrote his classics about that ideal of 'equality'. Personally, I believe he got it pretty right.

Daryl

[why me]

why me,

You seem to read different history books to me. I lived the last half of last century, and if there is a viable example of communism anywhere on the planet, I am not aware of it. Sure there are plenty of examples of 'capitalist' countries that have their problems, but I am not aware of any that have the extent of problems evident in the communist states.

USSR, China, North Korea, Cambodia have all tried and failed spectacularly. The French experiement got off the rails early as it centralised power and evidenced the abuse and loss of life in the millions that came to foreshadow what would occur in all the other communist states..

I am interested in the spectacular communist successes that fuel your optomism, that I have overlooked. Mormonism and the United Order was another example of how the theory was at great disparity with the actuality.

I have a good friend who was very politically active in in resisting Thatcher's England as Thatcher set out to destroy the coal unions. Whilst still not being a raving capitalist, my friend has no difficulty acknowledging that the Labor socialist state that preceded her was unsustainable and offered few sustainable solutions to society at large.

Communism, IMHO, has always been romantic, appealing greatly to those who had a problem with opening their eyes and seeing what its legacy was on the ground. Orwell looked first hand, and wrote his classics about that ideal of 'equality'. Personally, I believe he got it pretty right.

Daryl

I understand your position. But you confuse communism with socialism and this is the mistake that most people make. When I write or say socialism almost immediately someone will bring up communism. I am no fan of the communist system but it did provide people with certain securities which are rather missed by people who have lived in the communist system. I just saw a program on the BBC about Hungary and the commentator remarked that in communism you never saw people begging on the streets nor the poverty which now exists in that society. As a famous Hungarian sportsperson said on the program, in the old system people had money and a job and basic health care. It can be said the same about Russia, Mongolia, China, Modolva, Poland and east Germany to name a few. There were some good points to the system but it did lack some basic freedoms. But socialism is not communism and this is where people make the mistake of confusing the two. In fact some academics have called the USSR 'state capitalist' because its economic formation was based on wage exploitation. I would socialism over capitalism for the simple reason that socialism put the social at the center of life and not capital. Look around at the USA and see the widening gap between the classes as the top 10% gets richer and the bottom gets poorer. This is a generalization, I know but I just cannot accept the inherent evil that is in capitalism.

[why me]

may I add.."against any other man or group of men, regardless of how Moral, or Right, it seems."

Born Free...wow, finally a voice of reason..hehehe. Seriously, thanks for backing me up, it's nice to know I'm not all alone in my logic or feelings...I was starting to wonder if my views were frightening people or something....thanks for sharing...big hug from me, even though you really didn't ask that of me. I appreciate your point of view.

Born Free is a voice of reason? You are just saying that because he has the word free in his name! :D You liberatarins can make me laugh and cry at the same time. Libertarianism is impractical because such freedom of choice cannot exist without the total social and moral decay of society. You guys need to take a look around you and see just where individualized choice taken to the extreme as lead us. Maybe there is no free choice on the macro level. Our societies (members of society) face daily coercion from the advertising industry and other various media outlets through hidden agendas and desires. People have not racked up such household debt because of free desire but rather through persuasive tactics from 'dream makers' who stress happiness in a commodity bottle.
I have this opinion that the mode of production directly influences who we are as a human society. Capitalism centers itself inside the individual by claiming that it represents freedom of choice. And yet how much freedom of choice does a person with low income have? And how much choice does a person with a higher income have? In capitalism, free choice is determined by income to a large extent. Could I have chosen to go to Harvard? No. Could I choose to go to china for a holiday? No. But certainly someone with elite status does have those choices to consider. And aether many of the elite have not earned their status. More freedom for the rich and less freedom for the working person. And this is where free choice has a determining factor. Now isn't that evil? :)
Oh by the way, the libertarian 'gospel' is found in the book 'Anarchy, the State and Utopia' by Robert Novick, published in 1974. However, I don't think that this book is used anymore in academic circles. But John Rawls' book 'A Theory of Social Justice' is widely used and debated in academia. This book defends the liberal welfare state and Dancinfree will definitely hear about it in her political science class. It is a must read. His thesis was basically that those "inequalities that actually improved the lot of 'the least advantaged members of society'" should be permitted to exist meaning that the basic well-being of people will be secured and with it, their basic liberaties. I say hooray for Rawls!

[miss taken]

Good grief Daryl...some strong opinions there.

I have lived in the UK all my life, and personally I don't mind paying tax to cover a national health organisation that gives free help to those in need of it, even those people who could have avoided their health problems. ie smokers, oooh I could think of quite a few controversial ones...but smokers is good for starters.

The National Health Service works in the UK, and I for one am proud to be a part of it. Your ideas about pre-Thatcherite Britain are wildly biased of course, and open to debate.

It's alright saying you don't want to pay for someone elses operation, until it's your child that needs it and you can't afford to pay for it....then opinions might change.

Our NHS is NOT free, it is only free at the point of use, we pay into it all our lives.

(Good discussion by the way...politics is like religion....no clear ways forward, always about balancing the needs of the individual with the needs of the society as a whole....difficult)

I also agree that no one is born equal, and people are not equal, we are all so different. And society values different things, and pays them in accordance, sometimes absolutely wild wages (ie footballers) go to people because of their marketability rather than to those who quietly go about their work, dustbin men, doctors, all are needed but rewarded very differently.

However, I also feel that quality education and quality health care should be available to all, no matter what their salary. Children should not be living in poverty. I admire my governments attempts to ensure that every child is clothed, fed and goes to school, no matter what their parents circumstance.

In school the way we treat and deal with our least and most able children (being careful not to ignore those solid average children in the middle), is an indicator of how effective we are as teachers.

I think the same can be said of government. The way it treats its able, and least able, and the richest and poorest (being careful not to ignore those solid average hard working people in the middle) is an indicator of how effective they are as a government.

And Why me I agree with you on the relationship between wealth and freedom. However as the Beatles song goes

'money can't buy me love' (not real love anyway lest there be any comments on prostitution here!)

[aether]

Libertarianism is impractical because such freedom of choice cannot exist without the total social and moral decay of society. You guys need to take a look around you and see just where individualized choice taken to the extreme as lead us.

We need to take a look around us? Excuse me, why me, but I can see the world just fine.

Are you saying that if people had true choice over what they do, that we'd all become corrupt and evil? Do you really see people like that? Do you really see yourself like that?

I'm sorry but in my experience that is not how humanity works. Our current morals as a society are fine. There is nothing wrong with them.

Perhaps you think that if no one was preventing you from going out and murdering people and exploiting the poor, that you would go out and do those things, but please do not push your tendencies on the population as a whole. That is illogical.

[miss taken]

We need to take a look around us? Excuse me, why me, but I can see the world just fine.

Are you saying that if people had true choice over what they do, that we'd all become corrupt and evil? Do you really see people like that? Do you really see yourself like that?

I'm sorry but in my experience that is not how humanity works. Our current morals as a society are fine. There is nothing wrong with them.

Perhaps you think that if no one was preventing you from going out and murdering people and exploiting the poor, that you would go out and do those things, but please do not push your tendencies on the population as a whole. That is illogical.

Aether, in the UK there was a lot of exploitation of the poor as our society was becoming industrialised. There were good companies and bad companies. Still the same today (Exxon as an example)

There's good and bad in the world, and there's good and bad in the church. That's just life. People are selfish..that's human nature. Individuals are selfish, families are selfish, and countries are selfish...

They can all be altruistic and caring too.

Surely we have to have checks and balances. That's why we have laws, hopefully just laws that protect the weakest as well as the strongest.

[aether]

People are selfish..that's human nature.

Selfishness is not a bad thing. In fact I would propose that there is no such thing as selflessness. Every act we make is made on our behalf, and no one else's.

That being said, I don't see greed and anger and fear and violence as core to human nature. From what I've felt and from experiencing other people, I think at the root of everything, everyone just wants to love and be loved. Even physical comfort takes second to love.

Or is there anyone here who can honestly say they don't want love?

[miss taken]

Selfishness is not a bad thing. In fact I would propose that there is no such thing as selflessness. Every act we make is made on our behalf, and no one else's.

That being said, I don't see greed and anger and fear and violence as core to human nature. From what I've felt and from experiencing other people, I think at the root of everything, everyone just wants to love and be loved. Even physical comfort takes second to love.

Or is there anyone here who can honestly say they don't want love?

Aether I have to disagree with you here! I personally feel that we all have a whole gamut of emotions and feelings within us, both positive and negative. I have seen greed and selfishness over money for instance that almost entirely broke up my in laws family. People can be greedy, they do get angry, they don't love perfectly, and they mostly aren't loved perfectly either....

Of course most of us love our children but do we love other peoples children as much...I don't. Honestly...I don't. I care for them deeply. But I don't love them the way I love my own son. Maybe that is the christian goal. But then comes the sticky issue of how we show that love, do we believe in tough love, or caring love or a mixture based on the circumstance, and do we always get it right...no probably not.

[dancinfree]

Good grief Daryl...some strong opinions there.

I have lived in the UK all my life, and personally I don't mind paying tax to cover a national health organisation that gives free help to those in need of it, even those people who could have avoided their health problems. ie smokers, oooh I could think of quite a few controversial ones...but smokers is good for starters.

The National Health Service works in the UK, and I for one am proud to be a part of it. Your ideas about pre-Thatcherite Britain are wildly biased of course, and open to debate.

It's alright saying you don't want to pay for someone elses operation, until it's your child that needs it and you can't afford to pay for it....then opinions might change.

Our NHS is NOT free, it is only free at the point of use, we pay into it all our lives.

(Good discussion by the way...politics is like religion....no clear ways forward, always about balancing the needs of the individual with the needs of the society as a whole....difficult)

I also agree that no one is born equal, and people are not equal, we are all so different. And society values different things, and pays them in accordance, sometimes absolutely wild wages (ie footballers) go to people because of their marketability rather than to those who quietly go about their work, dustbin men, doctors, all are needed but rewarded very differently.

However, I also feel that quality education and quality health care should be available to all, no matter what their salary. Children should not be living in poverty. I admire my governments attempts to ensure that every child is clothed, fed and goes to school, no matter what their parents circumstance.

In school the way we treat and deal with our least and most able children (being careful not to ignore those solid average children in the middle), is an indicator of how effective we are as teachers.

I think the same can be said of government. The way it treats its able, and least able, and the richest and poorest (being careful not to ignore those solid average hard working people in the middle) is an indicator of how effective they are as a government.

And Why me I agree with you on the relationship between wealth and freedom. However as the Beatles song goes

'money can't buy me love' (not real love anyway lest there be any comments on prostitution here!)

Miss Taken,

I too, want equality for everybody..I too, want to eliminate the poor and hungry. I too, would love to see every human being have health care. The difference seems to be where you look for answers and give your authority to use your money which seems to be to the government. I would rather choose another way of solving these social inequalities...a more smaller, more community involvement , private way, to accomplish the ills that involve our world.

We have hosptials here that will not deny medical services to my children regardless if I have the means to pay due to private contributions and fundraisers. There are other ways to solve society's needs then looking to the government for answers.

You say that you don't mind giving your money to the government and trusting that they will handle this for you but what about people like me? Would I have a choice in the matter in your system? In the libertarian system, your system could work for those who choose it and those who wanted to opt out for their own reasons, could. My question to you is...who makes the decisions of where your money goes? You're giving your trust and right away to the government...you're allowing the authority of someone else's voice to dictate where and how much will be used. That's fine for you, it seems to be your choice but my choice is ignored..I'm forced to participate.

I don't want to give my right away...I don't trust the government to efficiently be the voice for me. I see inefficiency in the way government goes about "handling" these social ills. I would much rather have a choice of where my money goes. I know it's not completely practical in the extreme but I would much rather go in the direction of the freedom of opportunity then to feel that the government knows better than I.

Social security is one example of how inefficient the government handles it's trusted funds. I would love to have the opportunity to invest that money in whatever way I wanted but alas, that's not possible now and by the time I need it, it will be gone. Who had the right to do that? Previous generations took that leap of trust and now it will leave me without what is my right to have. I'm not boo hooing, mind you. I've planned on this outcome, so I'm preparing in another way but I ask you, where does it stop?

As for the freedom having to do with money...I would say that I have many opportunities to make money because of this capitalistic society and that's what I value..the opportunity..but we choose to "get by" because our values in other areas are more important for us. My true freedom is what I create around me...love...authentic relationships...time to grow and develop...I don't need to be in Hawaii, eating bon bons, to have the freedom to do that.

[dancinfree]

Born Free is a voice of reason? You are just saying that because he has the word free in his name! :D You liberatarins can make me laugh and cry at the same time. Libertarianism is impractical because such freedom of choice cannot exist without the total social and moral decay of society. You guys need to take a look around you and see just where individualized choice taken to the extreme as lead us. Maybe there is no free choice on the macro level. Our societies (members of society) face daily coercion from the advertising industry and other various media outlets through hidden agendas and desires. People have not racked up such household debt because of free desire but rather through persuasive tactics from 'dream makers' who stress happiness in a commodity bottle.
I have this opinion that the mode of production directly influences who we are as a human society. Capitalism centers itself inside the individual by claiming that it represents freedom of choice. And yet how much freedom of choice does a person with low income have? And how much choice does a person with a higher income have? In capitalism, free choice is determined by income to a large extent. Could I have chosen to go to Harvard? No. Could I choose to go to china for a holiday? No. But certainly someone with elite status does have those choices to consider. And aether many of the elite have not earned their status. More freedom for the rich and less freedom for the working person. And this is where free choice has a determining factor. Now isn't that evil? :)
Oh by the way, the libertarian 'gospel' is found in the book 'Anarchy, the State and Utopia' by Robert Novick, published in 1974. However, I don't think that this book is used anymore in academic circles. But John Rawls' book 'A Theory of Social Justice' is widely used and debated in academia. This book defends the liberal welfare state and Dancinfree will definitely hear about it in her political science class. It is a must read. His thesis was basically that those "inequalities that actually improved the lot of 'the least advantaged members of society'" should be permitted to exist meaning that the basic well-being of people will be secured and with it, their basic liberaties. I say hooray for Rawls!

Well, I have to admit that free is much more attractive in a name instead of the victim sounding..why me... :D ...I would say...Why NOT you!! Please know I say that with a hearty full on...HAHAHAHA! I crack myself up sometimes. Again, I believe the human spirit and society as a whole would rise up, given freedoms, rather then allowing the government to be their voice of what is "good" and "right" and "best" for society...what arrogance with my money!!

I feel your view of society as weak, small-minded blind sheep does contribute to your views and need to "save the world from itself". Do you really see society as victims, with no sense but what is advertised and the media influence...like we're just uneducated, eyes glazed over, hypnotic, easily manipulated grunts? You are assuming that we are just manipulated instead of actually realizing that we truly do "want" things and toys and sturdy houses, nice clothes, quality equipment, a nice vacation ..that those aren't "real" desires, we are just stupid to "think" that we desire those...oh geesh!! Wow, but not you? Somehow you were raised in this evil society..this weak society..and you rose above the stupid inbeciles that don't have a clue to what is "best" for them. You weren't stupid enough to be coerced into thinking that you want those things. Well, congrats!! (pouring with sarcasm) If you want to give all your money to humanity, then by all means I would love for you to have that freedom to choose but don't force that on me..that's all I'm saying.

I believe that you, why me, and every other human being should have the freedom to do with their money as they see fit...to me, that is what freedom means for me when it comes to money, even give it to the government if they want to but don't force that choice for me and call it a contribution..baaa haaaa. I believe that humanity would privately take care of the social ills, if given the freedom to do so. I love the idea of the freedom of opportunity to make more..or not..but the choice is mine. Your system doesn't provide that option for me.

You think you know better than I, what to do with my money that I earn? You think your morals are the ones I'm suppose to follow? But what if I don't agree with you?..in your system, "too bad dancinfree, what I say, goes..you don't have the opportunity to opt out..sorry, I know better then you." If there were ways to opt in or opt out..then maybe I would consider it.

"Mode of production"? Capitalism induces incentives for me to be and do whatever I want to do..if I want to make alot of money and have a more varied choice on material things..then I get to do that..If I don't value that as much then I can choose to spend my time doing other things, but it's my choice. Socialism breeds what mode of production? The part of the government that I see socialistic programs seems to lead to handouts and victimhood..all in the name of equality and pseudo-caring..limited freedom of choice (meaning: taking from my neighbor and giving to me...my neighbor is not free in this choice) and lots of "have to's", so everyone feels secure and taken care of instead of taking care of themselves. No thanks.

Don't get me wrong, I too, would love equality among us all..that would be heavenly..but HOW to go about accomplishing that, I would say we are on opposite ends of the spectrum..agree? I better run...time to check the stock market..oh, I tickle myself if no one else...hehehe :D

[aether]

Aether I have to disagree with you here! I personally feel that we all have a whole gamut of emotions and feelings within us, both positive and negative. I have seen greed and selfishness over money for instance that almost entirely broke up my in laws family. People can be greedy, they do get angry, they don't love perfectly, and they mostly aren't loved perfectly either....

Don't get me wrong, Miss Taken. I'm not so naive as to believe that anyone is really perfect. Of course we have a spectrum of emotion. But I think at the heart of that spectrum is the desire for love. I agree there are people who have greedy tendencies. But I would never honestly call someone a "greedy person." People have so many more levels than that. And in my experience greed is motivated by something deeper, namely pride. Pride is a destructive human emotion, true, but again I simply don't believe it's our human core.

Of course most of us love our children but do we love other peoples children as much...I don't. Honestly...I don't. I care for them deeply. But I don't love them the way I love my own son. Maybe that is the christian goal. But then comes the sticky issue of how we show that love, do we believe in tough love, or caring love or a mixture based on the circumstance, and do we always get it right...no probably not.

Um... not sure what you were talking about here. Why would someone have to care about someone else's child as much as their own? And what does this have to do with greed?

[miss taken]

Don't get me wrong, Miss Taken. I'm not so naive as to believe that anyone is really perfect. Of course we have a spectrum of emotion. But I think at the heart of that spectrum is the desire for love. I agree there are people who have greedy tendencies. But I would never honestly call someone a "greedy person." People have so many more levels than that. And in my experience greed is motivated by something deeper, namely pride. Pride is a destructive human emotion, true, but again I simply don't believe it's our human core.



Um... not sure what you were talking about here. Why would someone have to care about someone else's child as much as their own? And what does this have to do with greed?

Been 24 hours since I contributed to the thread, and I am not sure what I am talking about either!!!!

I think I am saying that I agree with Maslow that we have fundamental needs. To eat, to be sheltered, to be kept warm, to be healthy, and then on top of that we need other things such as fulfillment and love.

(I know of the research on monkeys in which physical affection was withheld and the monkeys became socially deviant)

But not everyone gets those things, and though we all need love, none of us are perfect at giving or getting it...
Does that make sense. I am just saying it isn't a perfect world!....and on a family level, I care more about my own children than other peoples. I'll take care of their needs before others. I am selfish at an individual level, and also at a family level, and somehow I have to tie this in with the needs of the community as a whole.
It's a difficult balancing act.


Off the point, but I think the church doesn't often help that balancing act.. Men too busy going about church business (the needs of the religious community) at the expense of their own families. Everything is a balancing act.

Mary

[miss taken]

Miss Taken,

I too, want equality for everybody..I too, want to eliminate the poor and hungry. I too, would love to see every human being have health care. The difference seems to be where you look for answers and give your authority to use your money which seems to be to the government. I would rather choose another way of solving these social inequalities...a more smaller, more community involvement , private way, to accomplish the ills that involve our world.

We have hosptials here that will not deny medical services to my children regardless if I have the means to pay due to private contributions and fundraisers. There are other ways to solve society's needs then looking to the government for answers.

You say that you don't mind giving your money to the government and trusting that they will handle this for you but what about people like me? Would I have a choice in the matter in your system? In the libertarian system, your system could work for those who choose it and those who wanted to opt out for their own reasons, could. My question to you is...who makes the decisions of where your money goes? You're giving your trust and right away to the government...you're allowing the authority of someone else's voice to dictate where and how much will be used. That's fine for you, it seems to be your choice but my choice is ignored..I'm forced to participate.

I don't want to give my right away...I don't trust the government to efficiently be the voice for me. I see inefficiency in the way government goes about "handling" these social ills. I would much rather have a choice of where my money goes. I know it's not completely practical in the extreme but I would much rather go in the direction of the freedom of opportunity then to feel that the government knows better than I.

Social security is one example of how inefficient the government handles it's trusted funds. I would love to have the opportunity to invest that money in whatever way I wanted but alas, that's not possible now and by the time I need it, it will be gone. Who had the right to do that? Previous generations took that leap of trust and now it will leave me without what is my right to have. I'm not boo hooing, mind you. I've planned on this outcome, so I'm preparing in another way but I ask you, where does it stop?

As for the freedom having to do with money...I would say that I have many opportunities to make money because of this capitalistic society and that's what I value..the opportunity..but we choose to "get by" because our values in other areas are more important for us. My true freedom is what I create around me...love...authentic relationships...time to grow and develop...I don't need to be in Hawaii, eating bon bons, to have the freedom to do that.

Are you really suggesting that the care of the poor and vulnerable should be left to private groups based on their good will within small communities.... Show me one single case of a country successfully instituting that and I might take it seriously...

Mary :D

[why me]

Are you really suggesting that the care of the poor and vulnerable should be left to private groups based on their good will within small communities.... Show me one single case of a country successfully instituting that and I might take it seriously...

Mary :D

Oh...miss taken...you are so correct in your post. I am so glad to have a comrade on this thread. I have to buy your mum (British spelling) a box of chocolate for making you so old labor. :D Yes, my fellow Americans are suggesting that. (Of course Born Free is from 'down under' but he also has John Howard weaving his conservative ideology throughout Aussie society).
It is a part of American social darwinist training which we receive in our school system. If many Americans did not have such a mindset, they would not be able to live in such a society...they would go nuts :Crazy: because their consciousness would not be able to adjust to the situation as it is. But I do love their childlike spirit nonetheless. :) They are soooo cute....

[why me]

Well, I have to admit that free is much more attractive in a name instead of the victim sounding..why me... ...I would say...Why NOT you!! Please know I say that with a hearty full on...HAHAHAHA! I crack myself up sometimes. Again, I believe the human spirit and society as a whole would rise up, given freedoms, rather then allowing the government to be their voice of what is "good" and "right" and "best" for society...what arrogance with my money!!

I feel your view of society as weak, small-minded blind sheep does contribute to your views and need to "save the world from itself". Do you really see society as victims, with no sense but what is advertised and the media influence...like we're just uneducated, eyes glazed over, hypnotic, easily manipulated grunts? You are assuming that we are just manipulated instead of actually realizing that we truly do "want" things and toys and sturdy houses, nice clothes, quality equipment, a nice vacation ..that those aren't "real" desires, we are just stupid to "think" that we desire those...oh geesh!! Wow, but not you? Somehow you were raised in this evil society..this weak society..and you rose above the stupid inbeciles that don't have a clue to what is "best" for them. You weren't stupid enough to be coerced into thinking that you want those things. Well, congrats!! (pouring with sarcasm) If you want to give all your money to humanity, then by all means I would love for you to have that freedom to choose but don't force that on me..that's all I'm saying.

I believe that you, why me, and every other human being should have the freedom to do with their money as they see fit...to me, that is what freedom means for me when it comes to money, even give it to the government if they want to but don't force that choice for me and call it a contribution..baaa haaaa. I believe that humanity would privately take care of the social ills, if given the freedom to do so. I love the idea of the freedom of opportunity to make more..or not..but the choice is mine. Your system doesn't provide that option for me.

You think you know better than I, what to do with my money that I earn? You think your morals are the ones I'm suppose to follow? But what if I don't agree with you?..in your system, "too bad dancinfree, what I say, goes..you don't have the opportunity to opt out..sorry, I know better then you." If there were ways to opt in or opt out..then maybe I would consider it.

"Mode of production"? Capitalism induces incentives for me to be and do whatever I want to do..if I want to make alot of money and have a more varied choice on material things..then I get to do that..If I don't value that as much then I can choose to spend my time doing other things, but it's my choice. Socialism breeds what mode of production? The part of the government that I see socialistic programs seems to lead to handouts and victimhood..all in the name of equality and pseudo-caring..limited freedom of choice (meaning: taking from my neighbor and giving to me...my neighbor is not free in this choice) and lots of "have to's", so everyone feels secure and taken care of instead of taking care of themselves. No thanks.

Don't get me wrong, I too, would love equality among us all..that would be heavenly..but HOW to go about accomplishing that, I would say we are on opposite ends of the spectrum..agree? I better run...time to check the stock market..oh, I tickle myself if no one else...hehehe

Are you a witch? You were reading my mind. All yesterday I was thinking of changing my name to Why_free! :D This is no lie...I was having such a crush on you :rolleyes: that I thought if I put a 'free' in my name you would agree with me more and see me for what I am...A nice socialist with a heart of gold and a soul of silver. :) Hahahaaha...but in all seriousness I will get back to you soon...did you look up the books I suggested and did your libertarian butt check out the website? Now dancinfree I want you to do your homework...I am here to coach you out of the capitalist mentality. :) After all is said and done, I a RM----a revolutionary missionary.

[miss taken]

Oh...miss taken...you are so correct in your post. I am so glad to have a comrade on this thread. I have to buy your mum (British spelling) a box of chocolate for making you so old labor. :D Yes, my fellow Americans are suggesting that. (Of course Born Free is from 'down under' but he also has John Howard weaving his conservative ideology throughout Aussie society).
It is a part of American social darwinist training which we receive in our school system. If many Americans did not have such a mindset, they would not be able to live in such a society...they would go nuts :Crazy: because their consciousness would not be able to adjust to the situation as it is. But I do love their childlike spirit nonetheless. :) They are soooo cute....


I am trying to think of places where Dancinfree's vision (as I interpret it, which may be wrong of course), could work.

One could actually argue that the LDS church takes care of its own, through its welfare system.

Our sp over here had a hard time convincing the GA's that used to visit, that it was okay to claim welfare from the state. It seemed they felt people ought to be coming to them. They didn't understand that we view it as insurance, for use in times of need. We pay in, we take out.


Caring for each other may also work in small village communities where everyone is related...???

Why me!! Even our conservative government wouldn't take away free education and health at point of use, so it's not about party politics here. I do believe that everything needs checks and balances.

You know the old saying that my social history lecturer (who was American) used to spout out.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. IMO that's true for any system and organisation no matter how big or small, religious, political, corporate or otherwise.


Mary

[dancinfree]

Are you really suggesting that the care of the poor and vulnerable should be left to private groups based on their good will within small communities.... Show me one single case of a country successfully instituting that and I might take it seriously...

Mary :D

You are exactly correct Miss taken..I cannot give you one example of this being handled by the private sector completely because of fear based government.

Governments who believe they need to use force to "make" me give, inefficiently at that, instead of taking the risk that maybe society would actually have more to give of their own accord...but no, the government is more moral and knows better, how to handle these subjects....sheesh. why don't I just give the government my whole paycheck and start asking for allowance? Who should make the decisions here...me, the person who earns my money...or give it to the government because I'm too much of a low life, I can't think for myself?..yeah, that sounds about right for a victim.

Just like our private companies that are recreational have to fight against the government to stay in business (private sectors can't compete well here)..they can't "risk" the thought of actually allowing people the freedom to rise up..it must be FORCED or the whole society will crumble in evil corruption and who would care for the children? Oh Please..give me a break! I give the human race more credit then that...at least I'm willing to risk it and see...no matter the result..at least it's REAL and not FORCED.

So, no.... liberty doesn't ring completely anywhere...so sad but I haven't lost hope yet in the human spirit for freedom of liberty.

have a great weekend...I'm heading to Nebraska for a friend's wedding..gotta run...keep posting..no matter what why me says...hehehe :p

[dancinfree]

Are you a witch? You were reading my mind. All yesterday I was thinking of changing my name to Why_free! This is no lie...I was having such a crush on you that I thought if I put a 'free' in my name you would agree with me more and see me for what I am...A nice socialist with a heart of gold and a soul of silver. :) Hahahaaha...but in all seriousness I will get back to you soon...did you look up the books I suggested and did your libertarian butt check out the website? Now dancinfree I want you to do your homework...I am here to coach you out of the capitalist mentality. After all is said and done, I a RM----a revolutionary missionary.

you crack me up!! I do see you as a nice socialist but I'm not swayed by the gold and silver that you mentioned... :p and when you're ready to evolve out of your fear-based, evil view, need to use force to make society moral, way of thinking, I will always be here when you're ready to choose out of that(hehehe) For I believe in liberty, so I see no reason for you to change your mind, only you can judge if or when that might happen. So, I ask you, can you as a socialist feel the same about me? Can you live with the idea that I choose to value liberty over safety?

Or would you demand that I change my way of thinking or you'll take my first born child..hehehe. My way is all about freedom...freedom to choose, feel, be, the way I want to. It's a spiritual way of being also.. Why me...I trust you..that you will choose what's best for you...I value you, the way you are? You don't need to change for me. You don't have to think differently for me to value you and trust you. Doesn't that kind of trust in how I feel about you and who you are and how you are matter to you? I don't degrade you because of your opinions...I don't think of you as "less then" because of the way you think..I just don't want you thinking that you can or should FORCE me to think, feel, or be, YOUR way. I want you to trust me as I trust you..and when I say me..I say me, as in this society.

I have to go and get ready to travel this weekend...no access to computers..so enjoy your weekend, basking in the agreeableness with Miss Taken...find what brings you happiness..I trust that you can do that. Thanks for the yappin. Oh, I get to study the consitution this weekend..no time for comic book reading..but I'll get on it as soon as I can..hehehe. Just kidding..I do honor your suggestions and I will dig in soon.

p.s. I've always had the hots for RM's...they're searching for so much guidance and direction..I can do that....HAHAHAHA ;)

[Born Free]

Guys & Gals,

I have stated briefly where I stand on politics.

I also note that the level of edginess that is evident now that this thread has turned to politics was only approached one time previously when someone came here with an agenda on homosexuality.

I have observed over many years that politics is an area where many people operate viscerally - that they have not read widely, and have rarely explored in much depth the position of those in the 'opposing camp'.

I want to throw into the ring that I think this thread is off topic, and distracting from the purposes of the site.

Further, and I am open to discussion on this, I feel weary of what looks like Why Me's insistance that most every topic he contributes on, has a socialist angle to it. I do not believe that anyone else does that, and it seems to distract from the primary purpose of the sight, IMO.

I came here to get insight and healing from one 'ism', so I don't feel to get constantly exposed to and even harangued about another one, particularly when Why_me appears to do so in the same one-eyed fanatacism that was so evident within Mormonism.

There is my "I" Statement.

Where do others stand on this?

Daryl

[silverfox]

WARNING

Some of these posts are becoming disrespectful and insulting of others' opinions.

Some opinions are also being presented in a forceful manner.

Feel free to have a personal debate via Private Messaging but not on the open forum.

Please try to re-evaluate how your opinions are being presented.

Please keep in mind the forum policies stated at the top of the page.

Thanks, Silverfox

[why me]

Guys & Gals,

I have stated briefly where I stand on politics.

I also note that the level of edginess that is evident now that this thread has turned to politics was only approached one time previously when someone came here with an agenda on homosexuality.

I have observed over many years that politics is an area where many people operate viscerally - that they have not read widely, and have rarely explored in much depth the position of those in the 'opposing camp'.

I want to throw into the ring that I think this thread is off topic, and distracting from the purposes of the site.

Further, and I am open to discussion on this, I feel weary of what looks like Why Me's insistance that most every topic he contributes on, has a socialist angle to it. I do not believe that anyone else does that, and it seems to distract from the primary purpose of the sight, IMO.

I came here to get insight and healing from one 'ism', so I don't feel to get constantly exposed to and even harangued about another one, particularly when Why_me appears to do so in the same one-eyed fanatacism that was so evident within Mormonism.

There is my "I" Statement.

Where do others stand on this?

Daryl

Now I know how Ryan felt. I think that this thread in its later stages was between four people: Why me, Dancinfree, aether and Miss Taken. And each of us were communicating with eachother. I found the whole thing amusing and a learning experience. I think that Miss Taken, Dancinfree, aether and I have a good relationship with eachother and when we post on other threads we show this good relationship. And even in this thread, we were encouraging eachother to read more and were supportive in eachother's activities. I saw no harm in it. I knew that Born Free didn't like my politics from the very beginning but I cannot be liked or loved by everyone for what I believe. It was interesting however how I was selected out of the crowd and the others were ignored. This does show some bias on Born Free's part. Was I more 'fanatical' than aether or Dancinfree? Actually I think that the word fanatical is a loaded word used to censor those who have opposite points of view. I enjoy differences of opinion and I never take offence if someone expresses views that I don't agree with. But it is amazing how often have been censored in my life by people who say that they love freedom. It is all a part of life. Dancinfree is in a political science class and it was interesting for me to hear what she is studying and doing in that class. And I was very suppostive of her. It was also interesting to get Miss Taken's views from a British perspective. This thread was a choice. You could join in or it could be ignored like any other thread that was posted in this forum. There has been over 820 lookers to this thread which means that the orginal name for the thread was popular. The question was: 'does evil exist?' and I see evil in poverty and suicide due to alienation and invisiblity and I placed blame where I thought it belonged in the later stages of the thread and there was a debate. I suppose the problem has to do with freedom and how free we are to express ourselves in this forum. At times I don't feel free. I feel that I need to choose each word carefully so as not to 'offend' anyone. I have never censored anyone for their opinions in my life but there are people who use the censor angle to shut people down who have an opposing view. Does Postmormon have an ism? I think that it does have an ism. It is called postmormonism and the ism is stated in the home page. If you state a belief behind the word--a ism is developed. And yes, people can be 'fanatical' in making sure that postmormonism remains pure in its objectives. The problem which will develop in the near future is: a community that does not like to be taken out of its comfort zone will eventually become a sterile community and then we become TBPM's----true blue postmormons. In truth, I don't feel comfortable here anymore. Perhaps it is just a momentary reaction and it will pass. But usually censors have their own agendas for censoring, at least this has been my experience. I have posted on many threads in this forum and I think that I have contributed to the discussion in this forum but now...I will need to do some thinking. Difference is wonderful...especially if that difference suits our own perspectives. Such is life. Take care out there in cyberland. Oh...I am not really going anywhere...I am too addicted to the site to stop posting... :) Have a sunny day! :) And Born Free, I do like your posts. They are always thoughtful and interesting....

[miss taken]

I'll agree with Why me there! I think Aether and Dancinfree are great, and felt that this was a very good natured discussion.

I am happy to STOP if that is what everyone else wants!!!!

Hope everyone will have a great weekend! My sons birthday (7) so we are off to a theme park with his best friend tomorrow!!!

Mary

[Born Free]

Now I know how Ryan felt. I think that this thread in its later stages was between four people: Why me, Dancinfree, aether and Miss Taken. And each of us were communicating with eachother. I found the whole thing amusing and a learning experience. I think that Miss Taken, Dancinfree, aether and I have a good relationship with eachother and when we post on other threads we show this good relationship. And even in this thread, we were encouraging eachother to read more and were supportive in eachother's activities. I saw no harm in it. I knew that Born Free didn't like my politics from the very beginning but I cannot be liked or loved by everyone for what I believe. It was interesting however how I was selected out of the crowd and the others were ignored. This does show some bias on Born Free's part. Was I more 'fanatical' than aether or Dancinfree? Actually I think that the word fanatical is a loaded word used to censor those who have opposite points of view. I enjoy differences of opinion and I never take offence if someone expresses views that I don't agree with. But it is amazing how often have been censored in my life by people who say that they love freedom. It is all a part of life. Dancinfree is in a political science class and it was interesting for me to hear what she is studying and doing in that class. And I was very suppostive of her. It was also interesting to get Miss Taken's views from a British perspective. This thread was a choice. You could join in or it could be ignored like any other thread that was posted in this forum. There has been over 820 lookers to this thread which means that the orginal name for the thread was popular. The question was: 'does evil exist?' and I see evil in poverty and suicide due to alienation and invisiblity and I placed blame where I thought it belonged in the later stages of the thread and there was a debate. I suppose the problem has to do with freedom and how free we are to express ourselves in this forum. At times I don't feel free. I feel that I need to choose each word carefully so as not to 'offend' anyone. I have never censored anyone for their opinions in my life but there are people who use the censor angle to shut people down who have an opposing view. Does Postmormon have an ism? I think that it does have an ism. It is called postmormonism and the ism is stated in the home page. If you state a belief behind the word--a ism is developed. And yes, people can be 'fanatical' in making sure that postmormonism remains pure in its objectives. The problem which will develop in the near future is: a community that does not like to be taken out of its comfort zone will eventually become a sterile community and then we become TBPM's----true blue postmormons. In truth, I don't feel comfortable here anymore. Perhaps it is just a momentary reaction and it will pass. But usually censors have their own agendas for censoring, at least this has been my experience. I have posted on many threads in this forum and I think that I have contributed to the discussion in this forum but now...I will need to do some thinking. Difference is wonderful...especially if that difference suits our own perspectives. Such is life. Take care out there in cyberland. Oh...I am not really going anywhere...I am too addicted to the site to stop posting... :) Have a sunny day! :) And Born Free, I do like your posts. They are always thoughtful and interesting....

why me,

You started this thread on the topic of Evil with this paragraph.

"Over at the 'Weak belief in God' thread both bigeddy and aether claim that evil does not exist. For example: bigeddy claimed. "There is no evil!" and aether stated: "I don't believe in evil". This presented me with a question: Does evil exist? For me, there is evil and there is good but how to explain good and evil and give these words definitions and meanings? I went to a dictionary of philosophy and got an interesting insight into the nature of evil. This is in 'Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter A. Angleles."

Over time that has morphed into a political discussion, which I believe frequently taken an assumption that capitalism is synonomous with 'evil', particularly when I recall all the other posting by you that focus on capitalism which imply or state that it is either the 'root of all evil' or something very close.

Now if you wanted to persue materialism as an issue and a poor response to unmet spiritual needs, I might be interested.

My sentiment might be summed in this quote, which I may have posted before (sorry if I repeat myself):

"Not every problem someone has with his girlfriend is necessarily due to the capitalist mode of production."

Herbert Marcuse -The Listener

Why me, I recall engaging you early on the issue of depression. As I recall you were using medication only to address the issue, which most expert opinion agrees is not best-practice. One of the common symptoms of un or inadequately treated depression is fixation, which trait I am concerned is apparent in your continual refocus upon socialism vs capitalism.

If I did not care for you, or wanted to pick on you merely because I disagreed with your politics, I would not have taken the time and trouble to address depression in the depth I did way back when.

Sorry, my friend, this is not about you, IMO. It is about the objectives of the site and the needs specific to being post-Mo. If others are keen to keep engaging you, that is fine. I find returning to the same ground and rehashing it entrenches a certain 'victimhood' which is not a very empowered place to be, and certainly not one from which to effect the change I might reasonably expect to make in the world. It is a common place for depressed people to be, and I should know, as I have been there.

BTW, there is a big difference between Ryan and you. About 10 people struggled with Ryan before he was shut down.

One person, just one; me, queried your approach, and you now report feeling rejected and unwelcome. I would ask whether that is about the objective reality of your treatment here, or again symptomatic of depression?

I agree you have been an active participant here, and that I value. What I have a problem with is your insistance that many issues have at their core the "capitalism means of production". My life experience is that life just isn't like that. That is like saying, Jews, or Catholics, or General Motors, or the CIA are behind some massive world conspiracy. Sorry, I just don't see it. But maybe, you are just more astute than I am.

Your continued participation here AND you health and wellbeing are both important to me.

Daryl

[free thinker]

Why-me

You are not being censored. You are probably in a fractional minority in your politics though. For that, you are bound to get some heat. I have taken some heat here for being a political conservative, and so stating. I knew the heat would come, and I accept it. I think you need to do the same!

Also, please remember , the primary purpose of this forum is to provide a place for those who are decompressing from a fundamentalist religion, not capitalism. There lies the difference!! Politics is secondary here, at best, unless it comes into the arena of supporting the fundemantalist religion, from which we are gaining space idealogically. For example, the heavy hand of conservative political influence the church lends to the Salt Lake City area. Angst about that is certainly understandable, and I laud it's amplification.

I read all your posts. Every one. Sometimes because I know we are diametrically opposed in some arenas. It is helpful to me, personal growth wise, to rub cyber shoulders with those who disagree with my world view.

If I have anything to do with it, this will not become a parochial, intellectually censored forum. If it becomes that, I will leave. I think we have been very fair to those who have posted here, that disagree with us. I see no reason why that would discontinue. In fact, as you know, some here are active members of the LDS church. The fact that they can continue to post, and feel comfortable here, makes me feel that we are being open minded and fair.

In conclusion I would say, write what you want within the boundaries of the goals and objectives of the forum. But you have to know that you might be challenged in the process.

Thanks, and I sincerely hope you feel welcome here. I consider you a freind!! :)

Free Thinker

[why me]

why me,

You started this thread on the topic of Evil with this paragraph.

"Over at the 'Weak belief in God' thread both bigeddy and aether claim that evil does not exist. For example: bigeddy claimed. "There is no evil!" and aether stated: "I don't believe in evil". This presented me with a question: Does evil exist? For me, there is evil and there is good but how to explain good and evil and give these words definitions and meanings? I went to a dictionary of philosophy and got an interesting insight into the nature of evil. This is in 'Dictionary of Philosophy by Peter A. Angleles."

Over time that has morphed into a political discussion, which I believe frequently taken an assumption that capitalism is synonomous with 'evil', particularly when I recall all the other posting by you that focus on capitalism which imply or state that it is either the 'root of all evil' or something very close.

Now if you wanted to persue materialism as an issue and a poor response to unmet spiritual needs, I might be interested.

My sentiment might be summed in this quote, which I may have posted before (sorry if I repeat myself):

"Not every problem someone has with his girlfriend is necessarily due to the capitalist mode of production."

Herbert Marcuse -The Listener

Why me, I recall engaging you early on the issue of depression. As I recall you were using medication only to address the issue, which most expert opinion agrees is not best-practice. One of the common symptoms of un or inadequately treated depression is fixation, which trait I am concerned is apparent in your continual refocus upon socialism vs capitalism.

If I did not care for you, or wanted to pick on you merely because I disagreed with your politics, I would not have taken the time and trouble to address depression in the depth I did way back when.

Sorry, my friend, this is not about you, IMO. It is about the objectives of the site and the needs specific to being post-Mo. If others are keen to keep engaging you, that is fine. I find returning to the same ground and rehashing it entrenches a certain 'victimhood' which is not a very empowered place to be, and certainly not one from which to effect the change I might reasonably expect to make in the world. It is a common place for depressed people to be, and I should know, as I have been there.

BTW, there is a big difference between Ryan and you. About 10 people struggled with Ryan before he was shut down.

One person, just one; me, queried your approach, and you now report feeling rejected and unwelcome. I would ask whether that is about the objective reality of your treatment here, or again symptomatic of depression?

I agree you have been an active participant here, and that I value. What I have a problem with is your insistance that many issues have at their core the "capitalism means of production". My life experience is that life just isn't like that. That is like saying, Jews, or Catholics, or General Motors, or the CIA are behind some massive world conspiracy. Sorry, I just don't see it. But maybe, you are just more astute than I am.

Your continued participation here AND you health and wellbeing are both important to me.

Daryl


Thanks Born Free for your comments. About my depression I can only say that I don't take any medication for it---no pills, no alcohol or illegal drugs. I tend to face it head on. I have been through a great many changes in my life duing the last five years. separation, divorce, adjustments, seeing the world change in directions that I abhor among other things. But through it all, I got my master's degree and my doctoral degree. My depression gave me in its own perverted way much creativity. I am an observer of life. I see life from melancholy eyes but these melancholy eyes have been with me for many years. But my politics have nothing to do with my depression except perhaps it has taught me to see life through critical eyes. And so, I am a guy who sees life through sad, critical eyes. And I know that this is a problem if I allow it to become a problem.
As far as the thread was concerned...well it was a dying thread and in a short while it would have died on its own from old age. The thread became a personal conversation between dancinfree and I. Miss Taken came into it at my request in order to bring a European perspective to the thoughts presented. I think that my conversation with dancinfree actually helped her to explain her thoughts in more detail and address a direct challenge to her thought jprocess. Something that should happen in her political science class when she begins to express her opinions. I recommended some books to her; one book to support her views. I think that this book began the modern day libertarian movement and also a book by Rawls which would give a different take on life. This book is a plus for anyone to bring up in class when justice is discussed. What was my goal? In class it is important that students just don't state opinions but also back them up with reputable sources. The website i gave her was to see the opposing side to fine tune her thinking. It was a rather constructive discussion in my opinion. And she also helped me to see a different point of view in life viewpoint. I don't think that none of us felt hurt about what was said.
The purpose of the forum? Well this is an interesting point of discussion. I think that it is about communication. It is about being geniune and sharing. Different people have different needs in this forum and all needs need to be catered to with respect and dignity. It shouldn't just be about mormonism. Lets take a look at the home page and the statement. I think that the forum is best served when members begin to embrace life in all its forms and yes this would include political discussions but also discussion about philosophy, poetry, hobbies, leisure time, questions about existence, and anything which makes a human a human being. I think that it is about progression to something that is beyond what was. And yes, mormonism needs to be discussed too.
I thought your post was personal to me. If you would have mentioned dancinfree...well...I would not have reacted the way I did. As far as Ryan is concerned...well I need to be honest here. I felt that when herecently posted his explanation he should have received alitle more kindness. What bothered me was when someone challenged his statement. I felt that this was a little insensitive because it nullified Ryan's explanation and honesty which probably annoyed Ryan. After all who likes to have there honesty questioned? I suppose that I was still carrying that within me. But as you can see from my post...I was already softening up toward the end...I am not going anywhere except on vacation next week for a month...but even then I will probably be posting...now is that depression? :confused: Take care born free...and have a good day, mate!

[why me]

Why-me

You are not being censored. You are probably in a fractional minority in your politics though. For that, you are bound to get some heat. I have taken some heat here for being a political conservative, and so stating. I knew the heat would come, and I accept it. I think you need to do the same!

Also, please remember , the primary purpose of this forum is to provide a place for those who are decompressing from a fundamentalist religion, not capitalism. There lies the difference!! Politics is secondary here, at best, unless it comes into the arena of supporting the fundemantalist religion, from which we are gaining space idealogically. For example, the heavy hand of conservative political influence the church lends to the Salt Lake City area. Angst about that is certainly understandable, and I laud it's amplification.

I read all your posts. Every one. Sometimes because I know we are diametrically opposed in some arenas. It is helpful to me, personal growth wise, to rub cyber shoulders with those who disagree with my world view.

If I have anything to do with it, this will not become a parochial, intellectually censored forum. If it becomes that, I will leave. I think we have been very fair to those who have posted here, that disagree with us. I see no reason why that would discontinue. In fact, as you know, some here are active members of the LDS church. The fact that they can continue to post, and feel comfortable here, makes me feel that we are being open minded and fair.

In conclusion I would say, write what you want within the boundaries of the goals and objectives of the forum. But you have to know that you might be challenged in the process.

Thanks, and I sincerely hope you feel welcome here. I consider you a freind!! :)

Free Thinker


Thanks for you comment. Okay so maybe I overreacted...alittle :rolleyes: . I posted my response to Born Free which you should read. I have no hard feelings about it all and hopefully born free doesn't either. Take care in Utah and get those cookies a baking...we need some sweet foods in our tummies and we need to have a community sitdown over some ice cold non-alcoholic beer to soothe our spirits. Oh...and don't forget the ovaltine! :cool:

[why me]

I'll agree with Why me there! I think Aether and Dancinfree are great, and felt that this was a very good natured discussion.

I am happy to STOP if that is what everyone else wants!!!!

Hope everyone will have a great weekend! My sons birthday (7) so we are off to a theme park with his best friend tomorrow!!!

Mary

Have a good day at the theme park and a happy seventh birthday to your son. Thanks comrade!
;)