Does This Make Sense?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Possibly a small point but, but yet I think important...




You used the word, amusement.





I didn't use the word, amusement...


I never used the word, amusement...








......................................






.

[Arising_uk]

Thats because you don't like using words alone I thought?

Tell me why you linked the word "shocked" with an image of a man dying if it did not amuse you to make such a connection.

Tell me why you then used the pun once again in response to what I said about your lack of morality in using such an image.

Tell me why you then showed your fellow workers being electrocuted if it was not for your amusement to link yet again to the word "shocked".

[SpheresOfBalance]

Obviously he's committing suicide, and while extremely difficult to watch, it was his decision to make a public display of himself, ...

I see, so the sad and disturbed are fair game for the immoral puerile voyeur. Why not go the whole hog and shout "Jump!".

No, I see a big difference: There are four kinds. Those that incite, participate, inhibit and observe. The only one that is pure, as to Socrates statement, as to knowledge, is the observer.

The one that incites, is saying that he knows what's right, and lends to others judgement, to potentially do likewise, or otherwise if unsuccessful.

The one that participates, is saying that he knows what's right, as he does it, and lends to others judgement, to potentially do likewise, or otherwise.

The one that inhibits, is saying that he knows what's right, that another is wrong, and lends to others judgement, to potentially do likewise, or otherwise if unsuccessful.

The one that merely observes, is saying that he cannot know what is right for anyone except himself, and that he trusts that everyone does what is right for themselves. He does not necessarily lend to others judgement, as there is no necessary indication as to his judgement, if any.

Before someone foolish asks a foolish question: If someone yells help, well now, that's something completely different, as presented to an observer, now isn't it? Not to mention that I'm obviously referring to adults.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



"Shocked" does not mean amusement.



This may, shock you but just as we see pornography by the reflection of that essence inside of us, so you see amusement where I did not see it.


You see it, you felt it, you felt amusement and that is why you brought that word to light.


If it makes you feel any better about me, I think what you saw is sick. You saw amusement. I did not.







.....................................................







.

[Arising_uk]

.


"Shocked" does not mean amusement.

This may, shock you but just as we see pornography by the reflection of that essence inside of us, so you see amusement where I did not see it.

See, you do it again because it amuses you.

I did not say "shocked" meant "amusement", I said that you were amused by linking the death by electrocution clip to your use of the word "shocked".

You see it, you felt it, you felt amusement and that is why you brought that word to light.

Nope, I was disgusted by your behaviour and found your use of the clip profoundly offensive and a good example of your lack of morality and the moral contradictions in your thoughts and behaviour as you appear to think that whilst the elephant is deserving of your concern a fellow man is not.

If it makes you feel any better about me, I think what you saw is sick. You saw amusement. I did not.

Save your psycho-babble for yourself as you need it given that you posted a clip that apparently you found 'sick' purely for the amusement it gave you to link it to your use of the word "shocked".

Try as hard as you like but nowhere have I said I found the clip amusing nor that you did. What I said was that your lack of an ability to think about your actions and your need to sensationalize your words for effect led you to behave in what I considered an immoral way towards the mother of the man who was electrocuted. That it contrasted nicely with your elephant clip was just a bonus in showing that gnudom is your goal and not philosophy.

[Arising_uk]

Obviously he's committing suicide, and while extremely difficult to watch, it was his decision to make a public display of himself, ...

I see, so the sad and disturbed are fair game for the immoral puerile voyeur. Why not go the whole hog and shout "Jump!".

No, I see a big difference: There are four kinds. Those that incite, participate, inhibit and observe. The only one that is pure, as to Socrates statement, as to knowledge, is the observer.

The one that incites, is saying that he knows what's right, and lends to others judgement, to potentially do likewise, or otherwise if unsuccessful.

The one that participates, is saying that he knows what's right, as he does it, and lends to others judgement, to potentially do likewise, or otherwise.

The one that inhibits, is saying that he knows what's right, that another is wrong, and lends to others judgement, to potentially do likewise, or otherwise if unsuccessful.

The one that merely observes, is saying that he cannot know what is right for anyone except himself, and that he trusts that everyone does what is right for themselves. He does not necessarily lend to others judgement, as there is no necessary indication as to his judgement, if any.

Before someone foolish asks a foolish question: If someone yells help, well now, that's something completely different, as presented to an observer, now isn't it? Not to mention that I'm obviously referring to adults.

Fair observations,
So what is the someone who reposts anothers observation and especially what is that someone who does it for their own amusement and puerile desires.

[fiveredapples]

So who is this new idiot who posts pictures as substitutes for thought?

I can't believe this site had degenerated to gifs. Oh well, you guys were always headed that way.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Bill Wiltrack here.


The use of images & GIFs are a sweet and well appreciated gift to the deeper understanding of philosophy.


You are Welcome.



You can keep posting as you wish and offer-up your gems of understanding.







....................................................







.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Obviously he's committing suicide, and while extremely difficult to watch, it was his decision to make a public display of himself, ...

I see, so the sad and disturbed are fair game for the immoral puerile voyeur. Why not go the whole hog and shout "Jump!".

No, I see a big difference: There are four kinds. Those that incite, participate, inhibit and observe. The only one that is pure, as to Socrates statement, as to knowledge, is the observer.

The one that incites, is saying that he knows what's right, and lends to others judgement, to potentially do likewise, or otherwise if unsuccessful.

The one that participates, is saying that he knows what's right, as he does it, and lends to others judgement, to potentially do likewise, or otherwise.

The one that inhibits, is saying that he knows what's right, that another is wrong, and lends to others judgement, to potentially do likewise, or otherwise if unsuccessful.

The one that merely observes, is saying that he cannot know what is right for anyone except himself, and that he trusts that everyone does what is right for themselves. He does not necessarily lend to others judgement, as there is no necessary indication as to his judgement, if any.

Before someone foolish asks a foolish question: If someone yells help, well now, that's something completely different, as presented to an observer, now isn't it? Not to mention that I'm obviously referring to adults.

Fair observations,
So what is the someone who reposts anothers observation and especially what is that someone who does it for their own amusement and puerile desires.

Well if one could be sure that in fact that was their reasoning, I believe it should be frowned upon, what ever one wanted to label it, as it would serve no constructive purpose. But I'm not so sure that one would necessarily know this was their reasoning. There could be a reason that escapes one, as their experience may not be conducive to their recognizing ones reasoning. There may be, presumably, obvious signs, but one would be wise to ensure they're correct before holding one accountable for such a terrible assumption, as I do really believe in the thought that everyone should be considered innocent, until proven guilty, which can be an extremely daunting task.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Over here we have a saying, "He's a member of the green ink brigade."
Make's no sense to me, as I'm over here, and actually could care less about some arbitrary attributed meaning that's inconsequential. Color means nothing in this case, other than it being functional for each successive message, so as to quickly delineate, as I've, exhaustively, explained before.

So, yours was not necessarily a definitive experience, and you chose your level of interaction, as I seek mine. How effective were you? ...

One out of three.
I don't believe that one would necessarily know that, and that it really makes no sense anyway, as you seemingly have forgotten to list, to what you refer.

Why is that the case? ...

Because the one had wider support amongst the populace and it had an economic base.
You seem to have lost track again.

Who is to say which is better, gets more results. ...

Not what I say, what I say is that if one is going to moralise about a situation then one ought to be doing something concrete about it.
I obviously am, though I don't see that what you say is a necessity.

By the way I found out something interesting the other day that pertains to our argument, especially as it pertains to previous ignorant points of yours. So here you go:

"The United Nations: World Food Program (WFP) is the largest humanitarian program in the world and has been in existence for over half a century."

"65 percent of the world's hungry live in only seven countries: India, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Ethiopia."

"In either 2008 or 2009 (not sure which) they (WFP) gave 3.3 Million Metric Tons to 90 million people in more than 80 countries

"30% of food for the program passes through one port in Norfolk Virginia, USA"

"In 2008 the USA was the leading donor to the World Food Program with more than $2 billion of food contributions.
Saudi Arabia ranked second, with more than $500 million"

You want to really help the hungry of the world? Then funnily enough I'm with bob evenson on this, lobby governments to drop all import tariffs to those countries and stop subsidising farmers in their own.
You assert your superiority, based upon your unrealized hypothetical. So here I go, likewise: My idea is even better, drop money altogether, educate all to overpopulation and birth control, and then we can all take care of one another.
Your solution is dodging the real issue, maintaining certain Status quo's that suit you, which simultaneously weaves an ever more tangled web of deceit and contradiction. Mine, on the other hand, actually address the real issue.

Food aid does little more than distort the markets of those countries and make it uneconomic for their farmers to compete, as how do you compete with 'free' food.
And you assume that to have markets that compete is a good thing, sheesh! What you suggest is just a band-aid.

It also allows the governments of those countries(often dictatorships) to ignore their responsibilities and much of that food doesn't actually get to those who most need it as it often gets stolen or hoarded by those in power.
That's not anyone's fault but the thieves.

Your figures sound impressive but there appear to be about 870 million hungry people in the world so 90 million only helps 10% approximately.
I don't know where you get that figure from. You have to compare apples and apples.


Its not surprising that 65% of the hungry live in those countries as they are just over 46% of the worlds population.
Again what statistics are you comparing? Population does increase with time you know?

Again you're seemingly dense, as to my meaning, which I have explained, as you seemingly project lies to support your argument. Meaning that you only care about winning, and not the issue at hand; that the facts through understanding, mean less to you, than stating your case, which doesn't really exist.

What are you waffling about now!?
It's your understanding that's waffling.

Do you deny that earlier in this thread you said that killing these poachers would be your solution.
I can't believe you now act as though you don't understand, after I made it quite clear, and you acknowledged finally understanding, or so you claimed.

I'm just pointing out the irony that you do not consider them to have recourse to your excuses.
I have no excuses. I have done something, both in contributions of money to by food for the hungry, and by trying to educate.

No, you cannot know this, that I did anything to kill, that's your assumption. ...

One based upon the fact that the US DOD is not a maker of fairy cakes.
Non sequitur, It would all depend on what position I had, how I contributed to any particular mission. If all missions I supported were patrol, for instance, where no action was realized! It really seems that some can't see past their own nose, and are only ever quick to make unfounded accusations.

But immaterial as well, as I was very young when I started working for the DOD.

As may be the poacher.
I never killed anything.

OK, since you're seemingly so dense:
While all are culpable, to one extent or another, which is more so, and does it matter?
The soldier that pulls the trigger, the authority that orders him to do so, the manufacturer that produces it, or the taxpayers that pay for it all. One can always leave the country, and find some unclaimed coral atoll, an archipelago.
Your logic is flawed. One is not to be held accountable, intellectually, for the acts of a human construct, created long before they were born, that they were programmed to do, as the young mind that they were, in a society thought to be their own, as they, like all children, try and be accepted, by what they believe to be, their kind. Wise, usually older, adults, are the only ones capable of finding any real quantity of truly free will, as they can always seek the unclaimed atoll. ...

Wise old adults accept their culpability and live with it. The less wise try to change the situation.
Those are fools, of which you speak, merely seeking points, in another arena; cutting their losses, and making the best of them. The truly wise know that wisdom comes with much time, usually. That the rate at which one becomes wise, is directly proportional to the amount of misinformation/trauma one has endured as a child.
Impossible to change, as there is no such thing as a time machine, you are seemingly, delusional.

Also, I've apparently done plenty, look at that statistic in red above again, so as to visit your folly.

Read my response to understand yours.
Nope; ditto!

The universe is "god," you fool! One way or another, this is a fact as it pertains to human existence. The only argument is, as to either intelligent purposeful creation, or arbitrary chance creation. And that, at this stage, is merely a flip of a coin, not very certain, huh?

The only argument is that both are a waste of philosophical time as they are pointless metaphysics from the point of philosophy now.
Your opinion, which again, are like assholes!

Not that it really matters, "Arising_uk," but where do you think the UK was on that whole list, as partially referenced above in red? There is quite a disparity between the number one and number two spot, don't you think?

Per chance, do you live on an atoll, in international waters, "Arising_uk?"

Nope I live on an island. One affiliated with the EU which gives about 29% of all 'food aid'. Of that group the UK is the largest donator.
That's pretty vague, sorry you felt like you had to use a statistic for the EU, instead of providing one for the UK.

But see my thoughts above about the whole matter.
Yeah, pretty much of limited vision, creating an ever more tangled web, because it suits you, or so you think.

But the real question is, "your honesty, yes your honesty," while you do the math, as presented throughout this message, as to your place in the equation. Or to be fair, it might be ignorance, show me which it is, in how you choose to respond.

I did, and think on the whole that my solution would do the hungry of the world more good.
Just jerking your own chain, the problem is the weapon, called money, as you buy yourself more power.

[Arising_uk]

Make's no sense to me, as I'm over here, and actually could care less about some arbitrary attributed meaning that's inconsequential. Color means nothing in this case, other than it being functional for each successive message, so as to quickly delineate, as I've, exhaustively, explained before.

I'm surprised that someone who loves psychology so much thinks colour choice not of interest. Still, like I've said, it's easier to just quote each point as all these colours make it looks like a real mess but then I'm not a synesthete.

I don't believe that one would necessarily know that, and that it really makes no sense anyway, as you seemingly have forgotten to list, to what you refer.

Of course one would, it was the campaign against South African apartheid.

You seem to have lost track again.

Not at all.

I obviously am, though I don't see that what you say is a necessity.

Then what you are doing is not working as the larger animals you appear concerned about appear to be going extinct.

You assert your superiority, based upon your unrealized hypothetical. So here I go, likewise: My idea is even better, drop money altogether, educate all to overpopulation and birth control, and then we can all take care of one another. Your solution is dodging the real issue, maintaining certain Status quo's that suit you, which simultaneously weaves an ever more tangled web of deceit and contradiction. Mine, on the other hand, actually address the real issue.

The real issue is poverty, take a look at the affluent countries and their birth rates have fallen. Why? Because they don't need to have so many kids to support them in old age nor to cover those that die due to poverty. Also education for women appears to be just about the best birth control we've found so far as they can then make a living without a man around.

If you drop money you'll still have to barter and the reason why we don't barter anymore is that it's inefficient compared to money.

And you assume that to have markets that compete is a good thing, sheesh! What you suggest is just a band-aid.

Soviet Russia tried your approach and they starved.

That's not anyone's fault but the thieves.

And those stupid or venal enough to continue giving it to them.

I don't know where you get that figure from. You have to compare apples and apples.

From the WHO statistics.

Again what statistics are you comparing? Population does increase with time you know?

These were the figures for 2012.

It's your understanding that's waffling.

I understand that anything you don't agree with is labelled lies by you.

I can't believe you now act as though you don't understand, after I made it quite clear, and you acknowledged finally understanding, or so you claimed.

I was talking about your original posts on the subject.

I have no excuses. I have done something, both in contributions of money to by food for the hungry, and by trying to educate.

But they are still starving and apparently the numbers are going up. Why not try another solution.

Non sequitur, It would all depend on what position I had, how I contributed to any particular mission. If all missions I supported were patrol, for instance, where no action was realized! It really seems that some can't see past their own nose, and are only ever quick to make unfounded accusations.

And de nile is a big river in Egypt. The point of a military and its DOD is to develop better and more efficient ways to kill people, that it may be sooner or later in no way lessens ones contribution to such an aim.

I never killed anything.

Never said you did. I said that the excuses you give yourself, i.e. circumstance, apply equally to the poacher but you appear to not want to grant your fellow man the same licence you give yourself.

Those are fools, of which you speak, merely seeking points, in another arena; cutting their losses, and making the best of them. The truly wise know that wisdom comes with much time, usually. That the rate at which one becomes wise, is directly proportional to the amount of misinformation/trauma one has endured as a child.
Impossible to change, as there is no such thing as a time machine, you are seemingly, delusional.

And you are in love with your victimhood. As there is exactly a time-machine and its called the mind. Whilst one cannot change whats happened to one, one can surely change how one is presently responding to it.

Nope; ditto!

The folly is yours as giving away over-subsidised food will not solve the issue of the hungry. As the NGO's are beginning to realise.

Your opinion, which again, are like assholes!

The thing about opinions is that some can be based upon experience and knowledge of the subject.

That's pretty vague, sorry you felt like you had to use a statistic for the EU, instead of providing one for the UK.

lmao, given that elsewhere you yakked on about shouting-up ones nation.

The reason why I did not do this is that I can't find the breakdown. Not that I give much of a stuff as I think the policy misguided.

Yeah, pretty much of limited vision, creating an ever more tangled web, because it suits you, or so you think.

Actually I think I clarified my vision. Its your wishy-washy policies that cause more issues than they solve.

Just jerking your own chain, the problem is the weapon, called money, as you buy yourself more power.

you really do live in a simplistic and absolutist world don't you. Your food-aid is easily given as its over-subsidised produce, it distorts internal markets and puts indigenous farmers out of work.

[Hjarloprillar]

ah Arising you pommie fuk.

put the boot in. get it sorted



[the dod is hand in hand with livermore labs thermonukes plasma weaps. Sci fi to the rubes]

[SpheresOfBalance]

Make's no sense to me, as I'm over here, and actually could care less about some arbitrary attributed meaning that's inconsequential. Color means nothing in this case, other than it being functional for each successive message, so as to quickly delineate, as I've, exhaustively, explained before.

I'm surprised that someone who loves psychology so much thinks colour choice not of interest. Still, like I've said, it's easier to just quote each point as all these colours make it looks like a real mess but then I'm not a synesthete.
It's arbitrary, fool, as sometimes green is just green! But sometimes it's all about pushing buttons.

I don't believe that one would necessarily know that, and that it really makes no sense anyway, as you seemingly have forgotten to list, to what you refer.

Of course one would, it was the campaign against South African apartheid.
This thread is about killing for the sake of money, that which signals our end, apartheid, are you kidding me?

You seem to have lost track again.

Not at all.

I obviously am, though I don't see that what you say is a necessity.

Then what you are doing is not working as the larger animals you appear concerned about appear to be going extinct.
I've sent money, I never said it was a constant stream. What was done with it at that time, was out of my hands, but it's true that all the time one can hear about misappropriation of funding, or that hind-sights 20/20. So what's the point? We do what we can, when we can.

You assert your superiority, based upon your unrealized hypothetical. So here I go, likewise: My idea is even better, drop money altogether, educate all to overpopulation and birth control, and then we can all take care of one another. Your solution is dodging the real issue, maintaining certain Status quo's that suit you, which simultaneously weaves an ever more tangled web of deceit and contradiction. Mine, on the other hand, actually address the real issue.

The real issue is poverty,
No it's not!

take a look at the affluent countries and their birth rates have fallen. Why? Because they don't need to have so many kids to support them in old age nor to cover those that die due to poverty. Also education for women appears to be just about the best birth control we've found so far as they can then make a living without a man around.

If you drop money you'll still have to barter and the reason why we don't barter anymore is that it's inefficient compared to money.
Money is an illusion.

And you assume that to have markets that compete is a good thing, sheesh! What you suggest is just a band-aid.

Soviet Russia tried your approach and they starved.
You don't know what my approach is.

That's not anyone's fault but the thieves.

And those stupid or venal enough to continue giving it to them.
No one gives anything to a thief, do you really need me to post the definition of thief? Are you really that stupid?

I don't know where you get that figure from. You have to compare apples and apples.

From the WHO statistics.
You still don't get it.

Again what statistics are you comparing? Population does increase with time you know?

These were the figures for 2012.
Now you kinda do, but obviously failed to pay attention to my original claim, just like you.

It's your understanding that's waffling.

I understand that anything you don't agree with is labelled lies by you.
"...anything you don't agree with is labelled...," your characterization, as if you could know my motivation, hence a lie, as you assumed incorrectly!

I can't believe you now act as though you don't understand, after I made it quite clear, and you acknowledged finally understanding, or so you claimed.

I was talking about your original posts on the subject.
I don't think you can keep track contextually, but we've talked about this before.

I have no excuses. I have done something, both in contributions of money to by food for the hungry, and by trying to educate.

But they are still starving and apparently the numbers are going up. Why not try another solution.
We each do what we can, to fix others lives, amidst conducting our own lives. Take your own advise, as it's the only one it can serve!

Non sequitur, It would all depend on what position I had, how I contributed to any particular mission. If all missions I supported were patrol, for instance, where no action was realized! It really seems that some can't see past their own nose, and are only ever quick to make unfounded accusations.

And de nile is a big river in Egypt.
Stupid ill spent humor of a clown!
The point of a military and its DOD is to develop better and more efficient ways to kill people, that it may be sooner or later in no way lessens ones contribution to such an aim.
You sound like an utter fool, as one can work for a DOD and not contribute to killing, rather saving lives. Your characterization is shallow, and ignorant. Your view can also include you, as I have already mentioned, that you've conveniently ignored; par for your limited course.

I never killed anything.

Never said you did. I said that the excuses you give yourself, i.e. circumstance, apply equally to the poacher but you appear to not want to grant your fellow man the same licence you give yourself.
Incorrect, different reasons, different solutions, different spheres of influence.

Those are fools, of which you speak, merely seeking points, in another arena; cutting their losses, and making the best of them. The truly wise know that wisdom comes with much time, usually. That the rate at which one becomes wise, is directly proportional to the amount of misinformation/trauma one has endured as a child.
Impossible to change, as there is no such thing as a time machine, you are seemingly, delusional.

And you are in love with your victimhood. As there is exactly a time-machine and its called the mind.
Wrong!
Whilst one cannot change whats happened to one, one can surely change how one is presently responding to it.
Now you got it, or is it just because you lost track again?

Nope; ditto!

The folly is yours as giving away over-subsidised food will not solve the issue of the hungry. As the NGO's are beginning to realise.
OK, then I would hope for some change, that efficient money can afford.

Your opinion, which again, are like assholes!

The thing about opinions is that some can be based upon experience and knowledge of the subject.
Yep, and some are not! Some can have experience and knowledge, and still be wrong, or vice versa. Or any other permutation, like self interest, etc.

That's pretty vague, sorry you felt like you had to use a statistic for the EU, instead of providing one for the UK.

lmao, given that elsewhere you yakked on about shouting-up ones nation.
My point, was that you felt you had to exaggerate to save face, as if it matters either way, which countries done more. Obviously a product of your assertion that it's not the solution, or so you claim. You failed to understand that I was not the policy maker, just the money backer. I was putting my contribution into perspective, or rather those like me. We have fed many people, any program must be refined, but that's not my job.

The reason why I did not do this is that I can't find the breakdown. Not that I give much of a stuff as I think the policy misguided.
And I wonder why? coincidence, "Arising_uk??"

Yeah, pretty much of limited vision, creating an ever more tangled web, because it suits you, or so you think.

Actually I think I clarified my vision. Its your wishy-washy policies that cause more issues than they solve.
I have no policies, I have only ever given money that back the policies, that you would want to be one that has a hand in the policies is admirable, do it!

Just jerking your own chain, the problem is the weapon, called money, as you buy yourself more power.

you really do live in a simplistic and absolutist world don't you. Your food-aid is easily given as its over-subsidised produce, it distorts internal markets and puts indigenous farmers out of work.
I told you I don't like money, but as with all, I'm forced to play this silly game, of yours.

[SpheresOfBalance]

ah Arising you pommie fuk.

put the boot in. get it sorted



[the dod is hand in hand with livermore labs thermonukes plasma weaps. Sci fi to the rubes]

How does it taste, you're such a butt sucker, like a girly cheerleader, of a groupie.

[Hjarloprillar]

ah Arising you pommie fuk.

put the boot in. get it sorted



[the dod is hand in hand with livermore labs thermonukes plasma weaps. Sci fi to the rubes]

How does it taste, you're such a butt sucker, like a girly cheerleader, of a groupie.

well said sob..
you are not tot [aly]vapid,

i dream of being a 16 yo girly cheerleader.. i'd play with my pussy for weeks
[mom bangs on door.. "what are you up to in there"]

doh i went sideways. going lateral as i coin it.

aside from playing with my pussy.

between you and arising. is just enough space to post this.
id call you husband and wife but who husband and who wife.

-------------------------------
IF. was conspiracy type. i'd call you a deflector. [i understood conspiracy theory in total..in 17 seconds. military/political history is made of such]
ideas get blown back into preset forum thinking.
that is what i would do if i was king of the heap.
And to he or she that is king of the heap.

it works in all cases but this..