1 edit
Originally posted by widgetIt's difficult to judge, period.
😲 It's difficult to judge whether a closed mind is ultimately more dangerous than intellectual arrogance.
🙄 What have you ever done yourself to change the world around you 😕 How did it work?
Your questions make it seem like you've been doing yoga for too long.
Originally posted by widgetUsed my value system to raise 2 wonderful daughters. One is a rocket scientist, the other is soon to become a secondary education teacher. May they go forth and multiply.
😲 It's difficult to judge whether a closed mind is ultimately more dangerous than intellectual arrogance.
🙄 What have you ever done yourself to change the world around you 😕 How did it work?
Originally posted by arrakisPlease calm down.
I'm not upset and I didn't use foul language, you dumb imbecile! 😛
Edit: Gee, it felt GOOD telling that a-hole off. 😵
Why are you calling me an a-hole?
And you still haven't answered my question: are you trying to tell people here at rhp what they should write about?
Originally posted by MerkPerhaps it's too complex a concept for this Forum 🙄 "People in large numbers" are comprised of what? 😲
Its not individuals that are the problem. Its people in large numbers. They make the dumbest decisions.
If you answered "individuals" you'd be well on the way to realizing that blaming your own lack of morality or action on the people around you is the intellectual equivalent of Eichmann claiming at Nuremberg that he was "only doing what he was told". 🙄
No trial provides a better basis for understanding the nature and causes of evil than do the Nuremberg trials from 1945 to 1949. Those who come to the trials expecting to find sadistic monsters are generally disappointed. What is shocking about Nuremberg is the ordinariness of the defendants: men who may be good fathers, kind to animals, even unassuming--yet who committed unspeakable crimes. Years later, reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt wrote of "the banality of evil." Like Eichmann, most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains. Rather, they over-identified with an ideological cause and suffered from a lack of imagination or empathy: they couldn't fully appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaDid you know that you didn't answer either of the two questions that I asked? 😛 So ~ Nada???
It's difficult to judge, period.
Your questions make it seem like you've been doing yoga for too long.
Yes, I agree, making assessments is difficult without exposing yourself 😞 What's wrong with yoga? 😕
Originally posted by stockenI would agree with that. The world had that already. We didn't always have laws, yet social networks formed, probably out of a need for survival, then evolved to what we have today.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of anarchy.
Not to say that it couldn't work. I just think we get back to where we are today. If history is any indicator that is.
Originally posted by MerkIf you understood the "glue" that holds our social networks together, you might be able to affect them 🙄
I would agree with that. The world had that already. We didn't always have laws, yet social networks formed, probably out of a need for survival, then evolved to what we have today.
Not to say that it couldn't work. I just think we get back to where we are today. If history is any indicator that is.