Trade agreements...

[jjj]

 

Your stepping over the line here jjj!  While you may be entitled to your "opinion" no matter how wrong it is, homophobia is your problem.  If you would like to discuss you homophobia problem please do so at another forum.

I don't get it. Is it that:
1) I must continue to discuss contentious subjects or I am homophobic?  or 2) not allowed to mentioned that homosexuality can be identified in our genetic code? Beside: I haven't got homophobia problem; I even have homosexual relative and my non-homophobic opinion on top of that! We tolerate each other, because our genetic make-up says so. What's there to be homophobic and be warned about?

Consider this a warning.

Objection: How many warnings am I allowed?

Also, your "genetic superiority" reeks of Hitler and Eugenics no matter how many times you say it doesn't.

Hitler was a mass murderer! hoSorry, I cannot see how my benevolent philosophical thinking has something to do with concentration camps, torture, killings & war. I like to think that getting rid of our inherited/ acquired neg traits is good thing?
Eugenics was suggested...  and I found it helpful (in the way I defined and meant it).

It's diversity that makes humans great.

Well, if that includes fostering our neg traits, than then the topic is 'discussed' and dead.

As great as we are no one is smart enough to be able to say what traits are "superior" and what traits are "inferior."  To even discuss it make me cringe!   

However, the fact remains that some of us inherited/ acquired (for instance) more possessive, more selfish, more aggressive etc. than others. Or do you think we all possess equal amounts of pos & neg traits?  You know... pondering airs it all.
========================
H

ow do you obtain philosophical maturity with only one particular philosophy (democratically decided to be the real thing, but some might not consider it as such) being available? You can't form your opinion, thus there's no way to talk about maturity, IMO.

Example: After years of co-operating in a forum one gets to know each other's thinking and insight. Every member contributes with all his/ her knowledge and wisdom and in this way gradually a number of universal guidelines for what is supposed to be logically correct/ incorrect are formed and democratically acknowledged.

Do you really think there's such thing as the (absolute) "truth"?

Well, the full truth is only known to nature and it's laws. Our task is to observe and interpret nature's laws as logically correct as possible. Not easy, but with lots of practice you'll be able to make the truth work for you! That's all one can expect and that's good enough, because from than on you can improve on that by steadily amending the gained insight. Also, then it becomes irrelevant what other people say; unless the same insight doesn't work for them. In that case this particular insight works only to your benefit. Apart from this process, we are free to discuss alternative methods to get nearer the truth.

I was also wondering (a question I've put several times, but you haven't answered it at all), how will you in your little artificial perfect society cope with isolation and genetic malformations?

I didn't continue on this idea, because I abandoned it and instead wrote:
...an isolated island with say, two couples
Yes, I agree this 'fairytale' is too complicated. Also it would take several generations to effectively weed out all negative traits; even with the best reformation program, because our evil traits are too deep ingrained. It took millennia to perfect their negativity. I give up! Yet, I still insist that I am willing and able to dismantle them... right now! Sadly, in the present (nasty) ideological climate I still need to apply them as defense weapon or I'll be 'processed' by sordid capitalist monsters and the 40 robbers!   

I guess for now there's little hope to cleanse masses of people The only feasible way would be to get a sizable amount of people to do it. They still would need to live on an island in a neutral environment (as described) for several generations. They would require intensive philosophical guidance, awareness and discipline. Anyone grossly infringing the agreement or unable to live under these ideology has to return to capitalist rule. (Punishment?) Yes, we are already all sizzling in capitalist hell!!

[The Meromorph]

I am growing increasing disturbed, as discussion begins to clarify and elucidate your ideas, jjj.
You seem to me to embrace several obvious fallacies, some of which i regard as extremely dangerous.
1. For example, you seem to me to believe that 'what is natural is good'.
2. You seem to think that logic is a guide to morality (rather than a semantic/semiotic mechanism invented by man to test reasoning).
3. You seem to think that 'right-thinking people'  should agree. (Which therefore implies that if some-one disagrees with you, they are not 'right thinking' and, if not persuadable to your point of view, can be disregarded as 'wrong'.
4. You seem to believe that 'man is perfectable', and furthermore should be perfected. (Aside from the whole discussion of what would be perfection and who would decide it [(see 3.], all such attempts that have been made recently [Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin et al., China under Mao Zedong, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, the former Yugoslavia etc.] have universally been totalitarian, repressive, and inhuman.)
5. You also seem, and this is perhaps most disturbing to me, to be 'spin doctoring' with considerable skill (not that many here fall for any spin doctoring at all  ).

I've said, this is how it seems to me. Please explain if and where I'm wrong in my understanding of what you're saying...

[Bluenose]

OK jjj, there are some things that I wish you to consider about your earlier post (I apologise to the siblings about my method of handling the quotes here, but I want to do this point by point):

Even you must admit, that even your philosophy is your personal view of things, thus not neutral at all.

Well, the moment we 'democratically' agree that this view is logically correct, it then can be viewed as 'the nearest to the truth'... until we are able to amend it. In that sense I consider it to be 'neutral' or pure truth.

This statement assumes that there is one "truth".  But humans are very diverse and your view seems not to value diversity at all.  I find this interesting given that what you have indicated of your background would imply that you have personally experienced a considerable amount of different cultures in your life.  Are you saying that you can choose some sort of "best" out of all that?  How to you prevent that choice being anything other than arbitrary?

Personally I revel in the diversity I find around me, I have friends from many different cultures and I really enjoy exploring their different way of looking at things.  None of us are better than the other, I am afraid that you seem to be putting ideas that seem to me to be very close to the border of what even Toadfish are prepared to tolerate, and that takes some doing.  I guess the thing that sticks in my craw is that you seem so sure of yourself, that you seem to need to be right.  Why is that?

And btw, every religion is a philosophy in its own way, and every group can say that their philosophy is the right/best for humankind.

Sure, there are countless misinterpretations of nature's laws, but somewhere we have drew the line and start to believe that our insight is correct and for it's when my insight works; i.e. delivers the desired (positive) benefit/ result!

How can you be so sure that your interpretations are not the misinterpretations?  What are "nature's laws" anyway?  And why do we have to draw any such line at all.  I contend the exact opposite.  We should always assume that our views may well be incorrect and always try to find flaws in them so that we may improve our understanding in the process.  As I said elsewhere, one we think we "have the answer" we have lost it.  

...how will you make sure those people remain dedicated and democratic all the way through the "experiment". And how do you want to find philosophically qualified personell, if you personally are not familiar with other philosophies than your own? If they would be philosophically qualified in your eyes, wouldn't that mean that they would imply only the philosophy you give them? Which would bring to a "dictatorship of thought", with only one idea floating around, and no possible forming of personal opinion (also connected to the isolation).

That comes with philosophical maturity. Established/ hard-gained principles of insight remain fairly stable and so, one is able to rely on them.

Oh really, established by who?  Philosophical maturity IMHO comes with a very liberal dose of recognition that by its very nature Philosophy is an inexact science with many pitfalls and false paths and at best should be treated as a set of guidelines, definitely not rigid rules as it seems you are implying.

If this group has been co-operating for years and so, established a number of such (mutually acknowledged) philosophical guidelines, then reliable co-operation can be secured.
I wished I draw a caricature of people carrying various sized sacks ( with neg traits) on their backs... Because, we all possess divers levels of neg traits. Ideally this group of dedicated, supervising body should possess the will and ability to rid themselves of their inherited/ acquired neg traits. Most-likely this will be people with lesser neg traits, I think.

One negative trait that this place actively seeks to reduce is the one of hubris.

The Toadfish Monastery has much to offer the seeker of self knowledge.  We do not have THE TRUTH, but we offer a way to find you own truths and the contentment that comes from stimulating intellectual discourse with others.  We Toadfish are a very tolerant lot, but do not make the mistake  of thinking that we are weak, just looking for someone to show us the way.  Also remember that our tolerance is not unlimited.  If you really are interested in the ways of the Toadfish, I suggest you re read the aims of the Monastery that are displayed on our home page.  These ideals are not something nice to have above the front door and can be treated with contempt once past the threshold.  They are instead deeply held principles by which we seek to improve ourselves, to be an example to others.  If you genuinely wish to continue here, then please try to show some understanding of our ways.

[goat starer]

1. For example, you seem to me to believe that 'what is natural is good'.

which further implies the rather bizarre notion that anything that happens isnt natural. Human activity is perfectly natural. ai may be abnormal, unusual, destructive, etc but is natural none the less.

2. You seem to think that logic is a guide to morality (rather than a semantic/semiotic mechanism invented by man to test reasoning).

couldn't agree more. If logic can dictate or define ethics then the implication is clearly there that morality is objective. personally i find the idea of objective morality rather bizarre as i am certain my understansing of ethics difdfers from everybody elses (and lions, cormorants etc)

4. You seem to believe that 'man is perfectable', and furthermore should be perfected.

now that would be unnatural! 

[ivor]

I don't get it. Is it that:
1) I must continue to discuss contentious subjects or I am homophobic?  or 2) not allowed to mentioned that homosexuality can be identified in our genetic code?

Your homophobia disgust me and offends others.  There may be people here that are homosexual and your contention that they are ill is quite offensive and unwelcome.

Objection: How many warnings am I allowed?

Overruled: Depends on the severity of the offense and the contrition of the offender.

Hitler was a mass murderer! Sorry, I cannot see how my benevolent philosophical thinking has something to do with concentration camps, torture, killings & war. I like to think that getting rid of our inherited/ acquired neg traits is good thing?
Eugenics was suggested...  and I found it helpful (in the way I defined and meant it).

Hitler believed he could make a master race with Eugenics the same as you.  I am sure Hitler's program started out as "innocently" as yours.  You're just a step away from "Genetic Purity."

Well, if that includes fostering our neg traits, than then the topic is 'discussed' and dead.

You're exactly right.

I have a box of donuts.  The donuts are diverse.  I notice however that one chocolate sprinkled donut is only half sprinkled therefore "inferior."  I happen to like plain chocolate donuts. In the box there are other donuts.  I notice there are sprinkled donuts also. Those donuts have all their sprinkles and are therefore "superior".  I also like the the sprinkled donuts however.  Suddenly I realize that the half-sprinkled and half-plain donut is the best of both worlds and becomes superior!  What a tasty donut it was.  The "fully" sprinkled donuts and the "fully" plain donuts are over-specialized and have become just a footnote in the history of donuts. 

The same has happened over and over to species in history and the same will happen to us with your "Genetic Cleansing Program."

However, the fact remains that some of us inherited/ acquired (for instance) more possessive, more selfish, more aggressive etc. than others. Or do you think we all possess equal amounts of pos & neg traits?  You know... pondering airs it all.

I think Hitler's desire for "Genetic Purity" was a negative trait as I do yours!

I guess for now there's little hope to cleanse masses of people The only feasible way would be to get a sizable amount of people to do it. They still would need to live on an island in a neutral environment (as described) for several generations. They would require intensive philosophical guidance, awareness and discipline. Anyone grossly infringing the agreement or unable to live under these ideology has to return to capitalist rule. (Punishment?) Yes, we are already all sizzling in capitalist hell!!

I can hear the sound of the "cleansed masses" goose-stepping in the background!  LOL!

[jjj]

Hi Bluenose... (thx for coming in)
At the same time, I elaborate on how I meant it.

Well, the moment we 'democratically' agree that this view is logically correct, it then can be viewed as 'the nearest to the truth'... until we are able to amend it. In that sense I consider it to be 'neutral' or pure truth.

I meant to say that...after having considered all possible options... we arrive at the best solution, which I consider 'nearest to the truth'. As usual, there are 'many roads to Rome, but basically the seemingly most correct solution is the one (or several, if you insist. Yet, basically any working solution has to be near the truth or it won't work.

I guess the thing that sticks in my craw is that you seem so sure of yourself, that you seem to need to be right.  Why is that?

A: Because, I struggled for decades to solve personal problems, such as personal development, materialistic security, partner relationship all on my own and... got there by my homemade philosophical concept. That's why I trust this method so much. I must have done something right, because this method worked!

What are "nature's laws" anyway?

Call nature's laws 'common sense' if you prefer...
I consider nature and its laws like God; divine! Examples: 1) Nature law says, that when you walk into a puddle you get wet feet. 2) Nature compels us to act positively (or logically correct) as to avoid suffering. 3) If you drive your car against a tree due to speeding... nature tells you to drive slowly! So, every move & action on Earth and in the Universe is controlled by laws of nature. Thus, it's only natural to make nature and its laws your best friend! That's what I did and still do. For decades I pondered about how I can find inner peace and discovered that... contentment (not happiness) was what I was after. More peace exists only when we are dead. 

Philosophical maturity IMHO comes with a very liberal dose of recognition that by its very nature Philosophy is an inexact science with many pitfalls and false paths and at best should be treated as a set of guidelines, definitely not rigid rules as it seems you are implying.

True, there are no rigid rules. To solve a problem one starts out pretty lost. Yet, after pondering the misty bits start to gradually clear up and with lots more patience and pondering one gains a kind of panoramic view of the problem, by seeing all possible avenues at the same time and that enables one to choose the best solution (or two). The confirmation of how correct one's reasoning is comes...with eating the proverbial pudding!  There's so much more to it, but that's roughly how I go about to get reasoning to work for me.

If you genuinely wish to continue here, then please try to show some understanding of our ways.

I come to realize that my real problem is less to do with hubris, humbleness, homophobia, Hitler and what have you, but rather with the fact that I have been 'philosophically on my own' for too long  and that's why it's now so hard for me to adapt to different ways of data processing. Simple as that! What to do?  Resolution: Best will be I just read your wonderful contribution (as a silent sibling/ partner) and continue to do my own pondering. This way I neither offend nor upset anyone, enjoy some philosophical stimulation... and thus, we are all contented!
================================

Your homophobia disgust me and offends others.  There may be people here that are homosexual and your contention that they are ill is quite offensive and unwelcome.

As mention in my reply to you private message, my statement wasn't meant to offend and I have no qualms to beg your pardon if it did.

Homophobia? Albeit I have homosexual relatives, we tolerate our differences, because it's a fact and nothing can be done about it, yet that doesn't make neither of us homophobic. So, in other words, there's not even a chance to discuss one's thoughts in order to modify or amend them? Thus, there might be many more such 'don't mention' subjects lurking, which might trap me any time. Risky business, because I can't afford too many warnings...
In turn mixing Hitler's horrible philosophy with mine dignified, homemade one is pretty insulting stuff, but as mentioned, I'm not easily offended as you are, because I enjoy philosophical stimulation, even then when it's off the rails... or 'bananas' as we say down under. Kind Regards, jjj

[Alpaca]

jjj,

I would like to address two points:

Thus, there might be many more such 'don't mention' subjects lurking, which might trap me any time. Risky business, because I can't afford too many warnings.

There are no unmentionable subjects. You mentioned it, and it's been discussed for the past page or so. An administrator may have disagreed strongly with your views on that subject, but the subject is nevertheless not taboo and has continued to be discussed. Please do not imply that censorship (or unmentionability, or whatever you want to call it) is happening to you, because it isn't.

The second point I'd like to address is your tone toward homosexuality. You have insisted that you are tolerant of homosexuality and not homophobic - and I will interpret those statements as being intended in the most genuine, good-spirited, and sincere way possible. Nevertheless, the tone you take when discussing homosexuality seems rather pejorative. In order to make sure that the language barrier isn't getting in our way again, I wonder if you'd answer the following questions:

1. Do you consider homosexuality to be a disease, "negative trait," or otherwise a defect in a human being?

2. Given the opportunity and the ability, would you alter a homosexual human being to make him or her heterosexual, even if that human being did not wish to be altered so?

[Bruder Cuzzen]

jj...What are you up to in here young man ! !

Have you already forgotten our e-mails ?

Granted I wrote "" suggest" you avoid certain topics..." and yes I also give you that I did not point out homosexuality specifically , and yes we do know you a bit better and again the answer is yes an enormous communication barrier was breached in an extraordinary fashion ....

But I am still wagging a finger at you while scowling , I turn my back on you for one day and its happening again !
A thread evolved and you were largely responsible for it , it concerns humility , I notice you haven't put in your two cents , or how about the other monastery virtues which brings me to my point .

I also asked you for patience !

Now I'm switching to my index finger and it is wagging at you now ! You realize what fingers are left now jj .

I see you there and I am amused that once again you are using shoe laces as dental floss , however other siblings don't smoke at all or have a pirate sense of humour .

Now jj , please...as a GREAT PERSONAL FAVOR TO ME ....start up a thread in human spirituality perhaps or maybe find a thread that interests you there . You needn't handle all the tough ones just yet . The siblings still need time to understand you .

Allow me to mention to you once again that I have read over hundreds if not a thousand of your posts so I do understand you and can certainly be of assistance ...but not right now ...I have a lot to do and sleep to catch . I didn't say you could not go out and play with your new friends ....... i am delighted that you are generating interesting discussions and  paying closer attention to the siblings suggestions .

Just find A safer room...PLEASE *sigh*.

[Griffin NoName]

jjj

Tolerance.

. put up with something or somebody unpleasant;
. recognize and respect
. have a tolerance for a poison or strong drug or pathogen
. allow the presence of or allow (an activity) without opposing or prohibiting
. the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve
. able to put up with

Which form of tolerance do you apply to homosexuals? The only one I believe could be valid is recognise and respect. And I got no sense from your wrting that it was this form of tolerance you meant.

Personally I would never use the phrase tolerant of homosexuals. If you have to say that, then for me, the saying of it actually indicates the opposite.

You may say this is a language problem. I am finding that more difficult to believe as time goes on because the language "difficulties" always seem to involve the same basic misunderstanding. The words that trigger people's sensibilities here all seem to come out of one camp, pardon the pun. The appearance of the word cleanse for example, fits perfectly with previous trigger words. Now, I understand that your ideas may be benevolent, but it is odd to me that the type of english that you use includes many occurences of words that are commonly seen as malevolent. Not knowing how you acquired your english, what sorts of books you read in english, makes it hard to understand why these sorts of words keep cropping up. It is easy to jump to conclusions that as you have gone about your learning, your development of your philosophy, the underlying beliefs and interests that have been drivers in your learning have been ones which challenge the purpose of this Monastery.

We are hopefully avoiding falling into the trap of jumping to conclusions.I believe you didn't mean to offend. That you do, and are not aware that it will offend, is a problem we keep trying to work around.

If you just read and ponder, you may eventually pinpoint things Toadfish tend to think similarly on. But the Monastery is not about having the "right" beliefs. It's about openess to each other.

Negative traits seems very dodgy ground to me in ways other than those already mentioned, with which I agree.

The same traits that make someone good at creating security systems, for example, make others excellent security threats. In IT hackers are caught by other hackers. Black hatters and White hatters. It is the application of the trait that may be seen by society as negative or positive, not the trait itself.

[jjj]

Dear Bruder Cuzzen... Your humor is irresistible! Do you realize I already kissed everybody good bye! Yet, you force me to continue and it will be your fault if things get out of hand and I'll be sacked!
Now Bruder Alpaca forces me to answer 2 key questions:

Before all, I need to disclaim, that my answers are not intended to offend or insult worshipers of brown love. It's purely my own thinking... No homophobia involved.

1. Do you consider homosexuality to be a disease, "negative trait," or otherwise a defect in a human being?

From what I observe from nature, nature intended man & woman to create offspring. Obviously, in this regard there's something amiss in homosexuality; not to say too much. To my humble brain it indicates that the genetic coding is to blame, not the homosexual. Since there is no help available to change this homosexuals are to be tolerated and respected, like anybody else. I respect any person, whatever race or shape. (Here I tried hard to give a polite answer...) In short you could say: It's a genetic handicap and I respect handicapped persons. 'Sickness' is the wrong term, because they don't suffer directly from it.


2. Given the opportunity and the ability, would you alter a homosexual human being to make him or her heterosexual, even if that human being did not wish to be altered so?
Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Mao etc. dictators do such things... not jjj !!!   
My intentions are throughout positive. IMHO

Now Brother Griffin is next:

Thank you for you understanding. I learnt my English from using a lousy little dictionary and now MS Word's thesaurus.
Of course I just select a word according to what I think is OK. If I would read lots of books I would learn to use them correctly. Now I have got too many things to do and no time for reading books.

It's about openess to each other.

Yes, but than I'll be told that my openness offends! Catch 69

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Emphasis mine:

1. Do you consider homosexuality to be a disease, "negative trait," or otherwise a defect in a human being?

From what I observe from nature, nature intended man & woman to create offspring. Obviously, in this regard there's something amiss in homosexuality; not to say too much. To my humble brain it indicates that the genetic coding is to blame, not the homosexual. Since there is no help available to change this homosexuals are to be tolerated and respected, like anybody else. I respect any person, whatever race or shape. (Here I tried hard to give a polite answer...) In short you could say: It's a genetic handicap and I respect handicapped persons. 'Sickness' is the wrong term, because they don't suffer directly from it.

Unless it's your position that what we call nature was put in place or is guided by some sort of conscious intelligence like a personal god or "Mother Nature", I don't see how you can claim that nature "intended" anything at all.

And if that is your position, fine, but hopefully you now recognize it as a personal belief that is not (and shouldn't necessarily be) shared by everyone else.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I am adding this just for the record.

According to different studies made in the past decades there seem to be a number of different aspects that correlate with homosexuality. Some basic elements seem to be involved, namely genetic and environmental (both in the womb and in a lesser degree emotionally).

On the genetic, there is a correlation between it occurring and a homosexual in the family suggesting an inherited trait. On the environmental, different factors in the womb seem to have some effect, among the most interesting I heard lately, the fact that when the same mother has more male children, there is an increased likelihood of homosexuality in the younger; it is hypothesized that the mother's immune system starts targeting certain hormones/compounds that are related, more successfully with each pregnancy. Lastly some critical periods both at 7y/o and the teen years seem to determine the outcome in some cases.

From the data gathered until now it would seem that certain conditions can augment the potential for homosexuality but none has been found to be absolute, IOW you can have two individuals with the same genetic traits with one being homosexual and the other not. More factors seem to be at play in different configurations with different outcomes.

Lastly, regarding nature some little details. What could be cataloged as homosexual behavior has been observed in different species, and tends to be far more prevalent than one would guess regarding the percentage of individuals of the species. Apparently the circumstance doesn't seem to impede the well being of the species in question. Other interesting nugget is that the mechanism may be a remainder of the time when species (as some fish and frogs do now) change sex as adults because environmental pressures like too few members of one gender in a population.

It is my view that the suggestion of homosexuality as an illness or 'handicap' is an oversimplification of a complex subject and at the same time a way to pass (negative) judgment over the circumstance it self.

[beagle]

Yes, but than I'll be told that my openness offends! Catch 69

I Googled "Catch 69" out of interest. Apparently it's a lesbian erotic film from the 70s.  One for the cinema on the island, I think. Assuming we can sneak it past the philosophers.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Before all, I need to disclaim, that my answers are not intended to offend or insult worshipers of brown love. It's purely my own thinking... No homophobia involved.

jjj, I know you mentioned that your first language is German.  I'm not sure if you're from Germany or not, but hopefully you can realize that something like this would be reasonably considered to be offensive:

"I don't want to offend the Germans.  I have no problem with goose-stepping sauerkraut-eaters."

In exactly the same manner, your statement can be reasonably considered to be offensive as well.

[goat starer]

From what I observe from nature, nature intended man & woman to create offspring. Obviously, in this regard there's something amiss in homosexuality; not to say too much. To my humble brain it indicates that the genetic coding is to blame, not the homosexual. Since there is no help available to change this homosexuals are to be tolerated and respected, like anybody else. I respect any person, whatever race or shape. (Here I tried hard to give a polite answer...)

as a hetrosexual who does not wish to create offspring i rather object to the idea that my genetic coding is wrong. in most species it is not expected that all animals will create offspring. when thay do you get rampant overpopulation and extinction events (sound familiar people?). So perhaps the social idea that we should all have a hetrosexual drive and a procreation drive is nothing but that. a societal construct that in no way reflects nature.

Natural things are, by definition, the things that are out there in nature. If you try to change them as 'unnatural' you clearly do not understand the terms in which you are dealing. (although i suppose your natural state may be that of ramant eugenecist!)