Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:"All he actually "needs," in order of need, is good clean, air, water, food and shelter..."

And he needs the sense that he possesses himself, that he has a measure of control over self and his immediate surroundings.
HQ, please make up you mind. Just the other day you admitted to me that you have no control over yourself. So which is it? Do you only use the argument of no control, so as to reason, where you harm others, is somehow no fault of your own?

Without the sense of self-possession, of self-efficacy, these (air, water, food and shelter) don't mean squat.
Says the one that sees that killing someone's the answer to their differences. Together a volatile mixture, lacking any real understanding of philosophy, or more importantly, psychology.

henry quirk wrote:"Just the other day you admitted to me that you have no control over yourself"

Big difference between (being addicted to [and enjoying]) smoking and 'the sense that (one) possesses himself, that he has a measure of control over self and his immediate surroundings'.
To you maybe, which really doesn't say much!

I do believe -- like a few others in this forum -- you're semi-autistic, or Asperger-ridden.
That you believe, or clamor for the support of others, is of no real consequence, rather only a testament of your denial, of the truth of your self. To be expected of humans, only known to well by me.


Such a condition would explain your fixation with isolated, ripped from their proper context, details.
Your lack of understanding of your psyche, only becomes more clear, with your every utterance along these lines.

In other words, often when humans refer to context, it's to attempt to differentiate so as to lie to themselves about the real meaning. A way to get lost in fictionalized complexity, that actually only exists so they can have their cake and eat it too. These are the biggest fools on the planet.

#

"the one that sees that killing someone's the answer to their differences"

Did I ever say that was the only, or first, solution?
Are you really going to be fool enough to believe that I see you, of only one of your singular thoughts? Neigh, it is a totality, of many aspects of your words and other things that I report.

#

Your (seemingly) autistically- driven psyche aside: I see no refutation of the necessity for self-possession in your post.
There is no necessity in thought or concept, as it goes without saying, as soon as ones heart beats that first beat. Yet you seem confused as to it's actual implications, caught up in your selfishness to neurotic, possibly psychotic, degree.


Your post is -- again -- just more evidence you got a bug up your bum when it comes to me.
Not at all, just some of your arguments. I only care of your words, of the BS they support.

henry quirk wrote:"Who initially engaged who in this thread?"

My post in this thread had nuthin' to do with 'you'.
HQ, anytime you quote someone, it's about them, or rather what they said.


I simply added to your list of necessities.

You -- as usual -- made what passes between us about personalities, not the topic at hand.
Then don't quote me, as doing so invites me to comment on your rebuttal/addition/snark/whatever.

#

"your arguments"

In the context of this thread your address of my post is this...

"There is no necessity in thought or concept, as it goes without saying, as soon as ones heart beats that first beat. Yet you seem confused as to it's actual implications, caught up in your selfishness to neurotic, possibly psychotic, degree"

...an address you only make after I called you on it and even in the address you can't help but attack me.
I saw no need to initially address such, "as it goes without saying." In rebuttal to your attack, I attack, get used to it, or stop!


As I say: bug up the bum.

Prove me wrong: address the topic, not the personality.
What the fuck are you talking about, that's all you do. What the hell do you think snark is? One of your favorite pastimes, though they usually hold no actual venom, rather merely belief on your part.


#

I asked: 'Did I ever say that was the only, or first, solution?"

You reacted (not responded) with: "Are you really going to be fool enough to believe that I see you, of only one of your singular thoughts? Neigh, it is a totality, of many aspects of your words and other things that I report."

In other words: you can't point to any instance wherein I declared violence as the only, or first, solution. All you have is an interpretation of what I post, and a judgment regarding me based on that interpretation.

In other words: you got nuthin'.
Dude even your avatar speaks volumes, have you not caught my subtle reference to it. To see you referring to shooting people so often as resolve; combined with your avatar; your shrugs; your pride in your cheating the government out of taxes to repair the roads, etc, that you use; your pride in your selfishness; that bit about Mary or whatever, in the wheel chair that shits herself, and her caregiver; that you'd have no problem pushing the nuclear button, killing indiscriminately, yet fear that resolve for yourself; and I could go on, and on and on, ad infinitum. Your arguments reek of all the wrong ideas. That you use to only allow for yourself, to only qualify yourself! Where mine allows for everyone, even those with your arguments, if one could just cut to that which caused such a selfish attitude. Your arguments are the antithesis of mine. Your arguments are in fact the problems with some of the people of this planet, PERIOD! Your resolve, as you state it, is the type that actually causes the hate in the world. So get over yourself will you, and start caring for more than just you. Fuck man, who screwed you up so badly, that you've taken this lonely stance, of me against the world? Because not everyone would do such a thing, quite the contrary.


#

"clamor for the support of others"

I'm not lookin' for the support of others.
When you say, "like a few others in this forum," that's exactly what you're doing! Seeking the comfort in a mob of like belief, as if it qualifies. And it doesn't necessarily!


When I write, 'I do believe -- like a few others in this forum -- you're semi-autistic, or Asperger-ridden', I'm saying that you're like several others in this forum: semi-autistic, or Asperger-ridden.
Yes, speak more clearly, that can be taken two different ways, and I chose the one that you're most prone to use, based upon your past track record, of priding your snarkyness.

If my sentence confused you: my apologies.
Or more appropriately, it was ambiguous, thus confusing.

How do we make it so there is fairness without subjugation, without unequal trading laws, without a dim idea that one country growing rich is great because you live in it and then leaving other countries poor, because of an overwhelming greed that creates inequity is somehow by magic going to make everyone play ball?

There is no impending collapse.

Wyman wrote:The problem with this 'the sky is falling' mindset is that the sky may fall a thousand years from now and you will have missed the boat (to mix metaphors).
Can't beat them join them huh? Right!

There is no impending collapse.
As if you can know this, not!

If you sit around and wait for it, you are wasting time.
Who just sits? Who decides what's wasted? Tell me about perspective?

If you foster a collapse,
You'd cry!

you will most likely fail;
Can I borrow your crystal ball, I believe it has a smudge.

in which case, you also waste your time.
Again, who decides what's wasted?

Instead, the best way is to excel within the system.
The problem with those more selfish, that see they're good at it.

How do we make it so there is fairness without subjugation, without unequal trading laws, without a dim idea that one country growing rich is great because you live in it and then leaving other countries poor, because of an overwhelming greed that creates inequity is somehow by magic going to make everyone play ball?

Impossible.
Not at all!

We are in a state of constant competition.
Says the throwback from his easy chair, afforded by the pen backed by the sword, that would cry mommy, if there was a real competition, without the sword backed pen. It's just that there's a new bully, where paper replaces club. You just fear no clubs at all!

In competition, there are winners and losers.
In in a real competition, it's obvious you'd be a looser!

Skip wrote:

There is no impending collapse.

Good luck with that.

Skip wrote:
Quote:
There is no impending collapse.

Good luck with that.

He'll need it!

Skip wrote:

Wyman wrote:There is no impending collapse.

Good luck with that.

Wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:He'll need it!

I'll be just fine, thanks.
Denial? "The hopeful depend, on a world without end, whatever the hopeless may say."

By the way, what do you mean by a 'real competition?' Gladiator, Survivor, MMA, Lord of the Flies?

Like I've already alluded, that which the comfort of your easy chair, backed by the pen, backed by the sword, doesn't afford.