Responsibility... How much is enough?

[paradox]

27 minutes ago, Crop said:

Mate you seemed to miss the whole point of the smoker anecdote. 

 

I'm not an advocate of smoking with kids on your lap but where I come from you'd get slapped if you tried to tell off a stranger about how they bring up their kids.  I don't think smoking around kids is cool but I also don't think that reaction would be unreasonable.

 

either way I definitely missed the 'civil rights activists were hypocrites' point..

[Crop]

Mate not sure how to respond, but I will try.

13 hours ago, bardo said:

That's some fascist social warrior type stuff man

Do you really think it is fascist to speak up for a child being poisoned?

 

13 hours ago, bardo said:

stuff letting others dictate what is normal

Please look up the definition of normal.

 

13 hours ago, bardo said:

1st world problems.

It's unfortunate this cliche is so rarely used in the right context. Mate I don't live in the first world. Nor do the people in the example you quote. Do you really think problems like these only occur in the first world?

 

13 hours ago, bardo said:

To many people getting into other peoples business,

I'm a bit stumped by the rise of the extreme right in western culture. So many people suffering from insular selfishness. Most of them are educated enough to know their actions harm others, yet they insist on this delusion 'it is none of other peoples business'. On the contrary it is not only everyone's business, it's their responsibility. A responsibility that, at least when in relation to children in Australia, is mandated by law.

Personally I think as long as your not hurting others you can do anything you like, but that's not what we are talking about here.

 

13 hours ago, bardo said:

a joke about race doesn't necessarily equate to that speech being malicious

I agree here, however I was talking racist jokes, which implies malice. Never the less I am yet to meet a racist that admits to being one, even Hitler thought he was the good guy.

I also agree that pc goes to far. Unfortunately there are some people which continually say things which hurt others. They don't seem to have enough common sense to filter them selves. Like most rules and regulations, they are always made for the dumbest person in the room.

[DualWieldRake]

On 6/8/2018 at 4:51 AM, bardo said:

say we need 1.5 acres to feed on person we already have major problems just there

 

 

That's the thing we don't.

It's a number thought up by leftist extremist pseudo hippies afaik

 

If you watched the video btw, 99,9 percent of landmass would be available for just that

[Crop]

2 hours ago, paradox said:

either way I definitely missed the 'civil rights activists were hypocrites' point..

Mate the hypocrites in the smoking anecdote still managed to enact positive social change. The point was that being a hypocrite is not a good enough excuse not to try and make change. In my opinion neither is getting slapped.

[paradox]

10 hours ago, Crop said:

Mate the hypocrites in the smoking anecdote still managed to enact positive social change.

 

Did they though?  Or did they just make some ignorant person think they were a cnut?

 

edit: I'd also say they aren't nessecarily hypocrites, they are against smoking with kids on their laps which they obviously don't do themselves.  What I do wonder is if those people think that they don't also engage in behaviour which others find reprehensible.. do they think you are so beyond fault that it's ok to abuse strangers? In that regard then I think they may well be hypocrites.. why shouldn't they also be abused by any stranger that disagrees with how they live their life?

 

but it I think the real issue here is the same issue you raised. Selfishness. My intuition screams at me that the majority of those kind of situations, the person doing the telling off is doing little more then stroking their ego & painting a picture of themselves as so much better & unlike all those other ignorant fools that are destroying the earth.  In their mind they are the ones saving the planet & making the world a better place.

 

its a complex thing in my opinion, of course I understand your point but I really think that actions are only as valuable as the state of consciousness behind them. I feel this is an extremely important point & I feel the arrogance & ego that often accompany situations like your smoking anecdote does not enact positive social change at all & it's actually the contrary.  For that reason I disagree that it's still important & positive for hypocrites to throw their weight around in service of the greater good.. if I felt like action from that state of mind actually served the greater good then I would agree with you but I don't 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by paradox

[paradox]

10 hours ago, Crop said:

Mate the hypocrites in the smoking anecdote still managed to enact positive social change. The point was that being a hypocrite is not a good enough excuse not to try and make change. In my opinion neither is getting slapped.

 

Sorry do be a dick but I still don't get the civil rights connection 

[Crop]

4 hours ago, paradox said:

Did they though?

Mate that's a good question. At the very least they removed the immediate threat.

 

4 hours ago, paradox said:

why shouldn't they also be abused by any stranger that disagrees with how they live their life?

How they live their lives is none of anybody else's business, unless off course, the way they live their life is harming others. For me personally, I draw the line at harming others that can't defend them selves. I don't think it particularly matters whether they are alive yet or not. Take a pregnant woman drinking alcohol at a party. Everyone at that party knows she is harming her baby. In the U.S. there has already been several court cases where children have sued their mothers for just that. Why is it wrong for her friends, or anyone else for that matter, to stop her before the fetus is damaged

4 hours ago, paradox said:

My intuition screams at me that the majority of those kind of situations, the person doing the telling off is doing little more then stroking their ego & painting a picture of themselves as so much better & unlike all those other ignorant fools that are destroying the earth.

Yep there is no doubt we have all met one of these. The environmental movement in particular, has more than it's far share of the self righteous. Annoying as they are, it dose not change the truth of the message.

 

4 hours ago, paradox said:

I feel the arrogance & ego that often accompany situations like your smoking anecdote does not enact positive social change at all & it's actually the contrary.

Mate I don't think too many people put them selves out there, to help others, because of ego. It's such a thankless task. You said your self, you could get slapped, or worse. It's far easier to give money to charity then constantly bring it up in conversation. Most charities now give little mementos specifically to cater for these people. Guilt is a far more lightly motivator.

5 hours ago, paradox said:

ts a complex thing in my opinion, of course I understand your point but I really think that actions are only as valuable as the state of consciousness behind them.

I would like to agree with you here. Unfortunately the world I live in is not so idyllic. Actions are judged by the results they bring. Take 2 men at the beach. The first is genuinely good bloke. The second a vein, narcissist, who can't stop kissing his mirror. Out in the ocean a child is drowning. Of course the good bloke jumps straight in, but alas he can't swim and flounders around useless. It takes a while but eventually the narcissist realises saving a kid could make him famous, so off he goes to earn his place on Oprah. Is the good blokes actions really more valuable than the narcissists?

[Crop]

5 hours ago, paradox said:

I still don't get the civil rights connection

Mate many of the people involved in the civil rights movement may well of been hypocrites, egotists and corrupt, but decades latter people are still benefiting from their work.

[paradox]

I guess we'll just agree to disagree even though we don't disagree on all these points.. just looking from different angles.

 

Why are you so confident you can judge the results of your actions so accurately at all? What if the child in your drowning scenario grew up to be an evil mass murdering dictator? This is the thing with this self riteous behaviour, it ignorantly assumes that you have accurately calculated the true nature of reality & you alone are in possession of the truth & therefore are justified in any actions you see fit to enforce your views on others. I tend to feel reality is a little or a lot more nuanced than that.  

 

Not to say it's wrong to save a child no matter the situation but it's wrong to unquestioningly assume that that action will inherently lead to the most favourable outcomes as a result of the infinite flow on effect of results that are affected by that action ie the butterfly effect. How do you even accurately determine what 'favourable' even means?  I think it's foolish to have that kind of confidence in something the human mind is simply incapable of determining.  If your instinct is to save the child then you should go with it, most of us would, I wouldn't over think it.. same goes if you think it's cool to tell off strangers if you think they are ignorant, if you get slapped then so be it.  

 

I try hard not to be ignorant & harm innocent people.. I try hard to live in a way that I determine, within reason, to be as ethical as possible.. i try hard to take responsibility for my place among all living things in this beautiful sensitive ecosystem & if a stranger angrily told me off about how I choose to bring up my child I might well slap them & I believe in the right of all others to determine for themselves what they deem to be right for them & theirs because I would never assume I am solely in possession of the truth.

 

'helping others' is exactly the kind of game the ego plays to prop up its self serving delusions & This is a truly rampant disorder of our times which has infected almost every one of us. Maybe I'm cynical but I tend to think that the majority of the preacher types fit this category. This is not even necessarily a judgmental position, rather a recognition of one of the inherent ills of humanity in general.

 

Hate to go on about it but your connecting any of this to the civil rights movement honestly makes no sense whatsoever. 

 

Have a good one brother

 

edit: I don't want to argue the point too much, I do see some of the points you are making crop, I just don't totally agree with your take on all of it, we probably agree on more things than not at the end of the day though..

 

the original point I made is simply about hypocrisy & I don't think the issue is all that simple.. some things are just obviously a bad idea, like perhaps smoking with a kid on your lap or throwing a pile of garbage in a river. some are a lot more subjective.

Edited June 11, 2018 by paradox

[Mapacho]

On 6/9/2018 at 4:16 PM, Crop said:

Mate thanks for your perspective. This is a question I have been grappling with for sometime. In my youth I was  a professional hunter, latter I went pacifist and vego. However the extremism of many of my vego friends made me uncomfortable, so I started researching their arguments. I was surprised to find most of the claims do not stand up to even rudimentary, open minded, scrutiny. It's ironic the 'not feeling pain like we do' argument was used, not that long ago, to justify eating animals and is still used today to justify the consumption of seafood. It relies on a lot of assumptions and prays on our inherent discrimination, that instinct of ours to favour things that are similar to ourselves.

 

 

No worries.  I appreciate seeing people working with it from an open-minded approach, because it shows intrinsic goodness, humility and awareness.  It is not easy to uncover the truth of what produces harm and harmlessness.  Really, while there is a sense of self and other, how can there be harmlessness?  Duality begets good and bad, and there's no getting around it.  So I think that this discrimination is worth being conscious of to be sure, and that it is essential to practice its minimisation where clearly possible, but I spend very little time on it as an ideology.  This is because I know when I cannot see clearly, I am liable to make mistaken conclusions and fall into the endless rumination game.  To take non-discrimination in the context of food to its logical conclusions, we can either eat nothing and die, or embrace nihilism and kill whatever we see and eat it, human, animal, plant, anything.  This shows me its unsatisfactoriness as a primary rational ethical framework.  We either harm indiscriminately, or attempt to harm only ourselves, where it is unlikely that others wouldn't be harmed anyway.

 

Personally I find the dharma to describe ethics in the most satisfactory way.  The evolution of compassion and wisdom are what reduce harm and suffering for oneself and others.  The path is one of continual purification where the end point is not something that can be seen from the current clarity, but where the progress is constantly in sight and provides invigoration to continue.  A lot of relief comes from knowing that action is only necessary when we have the capacity to understand the answer, then it will come, but we can't jump ahead and have to work with what is clearly wholesome now.  This generates humility, responsibility, gratitude, and a sense of goodness that reduces harm alot more than anything else I've come into contact with. 

[bardo]

On 09/06/2018 at 9:34 AM, DualWieldRake said:

If you watched the video btw, 99,9 percent of landmass would be available for just that

I did watch the video and it seems very unrealistic to me.

So if the rest of the land mass is used for food production how is it transported to where it is needed and who cares for and harvest the food ? Eg. India from Canada  is a long way to travel to the farm. Also what about building materials and such resources, like gold, silver, iron, coal etc. ?

 

[bardo]

On 09/06/2018 at 9:19 AM, Crop said:

On 08/06/2018 at 6:01 PM, bardo said:

That's some fascist social warrior type stuff man

Do you really think it is fascist to speak up for a child being poisoned?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-finds-no-link-between-secondhand-smoke-and-cancer/#4ab441a865d4

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/secondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html

Depends how you define poisoned, you could say cell phones and computers are poisoning kids, do you go around attacking them ? https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/cell-phone-radiation-cancer/

https://qz.com/1241867/cell-phone-radiation-can-cause-cancer-in-rats-according-to-the-final-results-of-a-us-government-study/

What about vehicle users, go have a go at them for driving around schools and parks etc. for releasing carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, formaldehyde, benzene etc. 

What about people who use battery operated equipment, or what about those dirty poison spreading solar panel users ? http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5650

 https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

 

When a study says bla bla bla and people who may be biased, a little brainwashed or just narrow in thinking start enforcing a view and believing they are right and those who don't believe are wrong well yeh it seems a bit authoritarian. How is that person enforcing so confident in there knowledge to assume what is best for someone else or not ? and then to have the audacity to enforce it on others. 

  Where do we stop ? when we eradicate all personal freedom ?

 

On 08/06/2018 at 6:01 PM, bardo said:

stuff letting others dictate what is normal

Please look up the definition of normal.

 

conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.  Who creates the standard and who says what is to be expected, especially when talking about human behavior.

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by bardo
computer stuffed up

[DualWieldRake]

1 hour ago, bardo said:

I did watch the video and it seems very unrealistic to me.

So if the rest of the land mass is used for food production how is it transported to where it is needed and who cares for and harvest the food ? Eg. India from Canada  is a long way to travel to the farm. Also what about building materials and such resources, like gold, silver, iron, coal etc. ?

 

 

Well the point was kinda that there is enough space.

 

Since we only need a negligable part of it you can use up the rest any wich way you like, some for food production obviously, and some roads might come in handy indeed. It's all possible.

 

Who will care and harvest for the food? this will be us humans (untill not before long atlas goes into mass production)

[bardo]

On 09/06/2018 at 9:19 AM, Crop said:

On 08/06/2018 at 6:01 PM, bardo said:

1st world problems.

It's unfortunate this cliche is so rarely used in the right context. Mate I don't live in the first world. Nor do the people in the example you quote. Do you really think problems like these only occur in the first world?

I think if someones biggest issue is a parent or relative smoking with a child on there lap then they should be thankful for that to be there biggest or one of there major problems lol.

 

On 09/06/2018 at 9:19 AM, Crop said:

On 08/06/2018 at 6:01 PM, bardo said:

To many people getting into other peoples business,

I'm a bit stumped by the rise of the extreme right in western culture. So many people suffering from insular selfishness. Most of them are educated enough to know their actions harm others, yet they insist on this delusion 'it is none of other peoples business'. On the contrary it is not only everyone's business, it's their responsibility. A responsibility that, at least when in relation to children in Australia, is mandated by law.

Personally I think as long as your not hurting others you can do anything you like, but that's not what we are talking about here

So if the law mandates it then its right ?

How are we going to survive without hurting someone ? how will we get food to the grocer ? How will we get power for the hospitals?

how about we let sharia law in australia because we don't want to hurt someone trying to stop it. Yeh we can know we are harming someone/ something but what level of harm is acceptable to you ? how do we continue at this population and increasing to manage anything without some harm ? Is a little harm ok for a good enough cause, what if in certain situations not doing harm now causes much grief later ?

I think claiming to know whats best for everyone even if others don't agree is a little insular lol.

[bardo]

17 hours ago, DualWieldRake said:

18 hours ago, bardo said:

I did watch the video and it seems very unrealistic to me.

So if the rest of the land mass is used for food production how is it transported to where it is needed and who cares for and harvest the food ? Eg. India from Canada  is a long way to travel to the farm. Also what about building materials and such resources, like gold, silver, iron, coal etc. ?

 

 

Well the point was kinda that there is enough space.

 

Since we only need a negligable part of it you can use up the rest any wich way you like, some for food production obviously, and some roads might come in handy indeed. It's all possible.

 

Who will care and harvest for the food? this will be us humans (untill not before long atlas goes into mass production)

Some roads for cars which need oil, long drive to the oil rig.

Pretty hard to contain us to one spot when so many of the things needed are so far away.

 

Enough space, but we are in continual expansion and our environment and many of its resources are finite, continuous expansion in finite space, think about that a bit. 

[freakazoid]

On 08/06/2018 at 0:05 PM, DualWieldRake said:

 

I don't think this is an issue

 

 

hey, oh yeah, i've seen that city.

 

In, just about, every sci fi movie with cities in them, lots had been abandoned after the "incident". Pollution Armagheddon or whatever. I don't want to live in any of the Metropolis's. (Metropolii?) The cops there were awesome. My favourite examples were Judge Dredd, Bladerunner and hmmm, let's see now, Terminators, Neo's squidies and agents and good old Robocop to look forward to but i'm sure they'll make all that "right" by then. Maybe thats it! A planet controlled by drones and screens! Fantastic! And the food can be farmed and delivered by robots too! Woot! Right? Fresh, right into peoples lounge rooms......actually, no, count me in. This is gunna be cool! it'll be like some kind of a Brav.... 

Edited June 11, 2018 by freakazoid
more doomsday one-liners

[bardo]

Well if this guy is right about what he thinks will eventuate then we don't have to worry, if he is wrong i think his general message it still applies considering we are all in a terminal condition.

 

[DualWieldRake]

Global impending doom has been a thing since who knows how long

If it were really true it would be an akward situation.

In wich the fate of mankind (and many living beeings) may depend on if someone turns the faucet off while brushing their teeth

 

 

[DualWieldRake]

On 6/11/2018 at 7:41 AM, bardo said:

Some roads for cars which need oil, long drive to the oil rig.

Pretty hard to contain us to one spot when so many of the things needed are so far away.

 

Enough space, but we are in continual expansion and our environment and many of its resources are finite, continuous expansion in finite space, think about that a bit. 

 

Almost but you are missing an important part of the equation.

We are in a closed system, we are only expanding (in numbers) as much as our resources allow us. AKA we are the product of the environment, not the other way around

 

Theres more than enough room for food you know, it's just that there are not enough people to eat it all.

In current day reality food is in practice mostly used as a prop in supermarkets (as in it gets thrown away)

 

Not sure where you get the notion of farmland supposedly beeing scarce, it really ain't.

[waterboy 2.0]

Land capability.... Look it up. 

 

Learn new things, don't make them up in your head. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bardo]

Dual, it's good to think outside the box and explore ideas, tho i don't think you have thoroughly thought through the logistics of such a vision

[DualWieldRake]

It's the reality.

Show some proof of supposed problems

 

Now it's just unbased doomsday speculation

[DualWieldRake]

19 hours ago, waterboy 2.0 said:

Land capability.... Look it up. 

 

Learn new things, don't make them up in your head. 

 

 

Lol, alright smart ass ;)

 

So you need a map in your shitty quality soil country to grow anything decent, that sucks m8.

Luckily theres great soil around the rest of the world.

 

Worst case scenario...you'd have to go to the netherlands to actually learn how to grow shit

 

Also, educate yourself: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_c/popups/mod14t03s01.html

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by DualWieldRake

[Crop]

On 6/11/2018 at 0:50 PM, Mapacho said:

To take non-discrimination in the context of food to its logical conclusions, we can either eat nothing and die, or embrace nihilism and kill whatever we see and eat it, human, animal, plant, anything.  This shows me its unsatisfactoriness as a primary rational ethical framework.

Personally, I think of it more as naturalism rather than nihilism. Our bodies have clearly evolved for an omnivorous diet, so at least for now, I'm running with that. However a fruitarian diet (difficult to do well) would solve the ethical conundrum. 

[Crop]

On 6/11/2018 at 2:39 AM, paradox said:

I guess we'll just agree to disagree

Mate I respect that you are willing to compromise, but I really hate this phrase. It implies a rigidness of thought I try hard to avoid. The way I see this thread is that it is asking us if we think we have a responsibility to stand up for what we feel is important. I think we do. I think we also have a responsibility to listen, with an open mind, to what others think is important. If we all did these two things the world would be a much better place. You have made some good points, but what is sticking with me today is several posts back you said

 

On 6/10/2018 at 11:45 AM, paradox said:

Did they though?  Or did they just make some ignorant person think they were a cnut?

    at the time I thought there is no one in this day and age that ignorant. Everybody knows smoking is bad for children. Then I read another post on here. Clearly, even here on this forum, there are people like that. At least some of my opinions have been based on the notion that while people have a lot of character flaws which influence their decisions, very few are truly stupid. I may need to reevaluate.