EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 3:57 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:21 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
You keep ignoring the fact that anyone growing up in that society would be only exposed to the beliefs of that society


I am, in fact, acknowledging those facts. I am also questioning the validity of those facts.


That is illogical. You cannot acknowledge a fact as being a fact and question it as being factual at the same time. It is either a fact or it is not.


Quote:
Quote:
" ... unless for some reason they were to travel. That is why slavery, female genital mutilation, child marriage, lack of religious freedom, etc., were and in some cases still are normal for some societies.


No. Even if they did not travel and were not exposed to the values of other cultures, having ones clitoris removed would still be both painful and unnecessary.


You drift quickly from the point. The necessity or level of pain is not relevant to the societal norm.

Quote:
We get that it is not necessary, but you can not excuse the pain based on culture.


Sure you can. We allow body piercing in our society and that is painful. You can even see infants with pierced ears.

Quote:
That is too easy. If you are not the 12 year old who is having an actual body part removed, cut out with a knife .... can you not imagine the pain? If you ascribe the pain to "some other culture a place" .... then you are not realizing it.


You cannot see past your own beliefs can you? The action is not in question, the pain is not in question, and the beliefs you hold are not in question. It is whether the actions are valid for a society based on their beliefs at the time. Not the beliefs held by any other society at that time or any other.

The society in Saudia Arabia chops off the hand of a thief as punishment. It is very painful. It is accepted in that society. It is not accepted in western societies, however, so it is considered a cruel and unusual punishment here. The society there accepts it and the society here does not. There it is fine, but here it is not. That is the point and one, it seems, you try so very hard not to see.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:32 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
You keep ignoring the fact that anyone growing up in that society would be only exposed to the beliefs of that society


Yes. Of course. Most of us have been educated in this society. But is our society not basically dysfunctional? This question is the most pivotal. We see the dysfunction and it's time we talked about it.

I am, in fact, acknowledging those facts. I am also questioning the validity of those facts.


That is illogical. You cannot acknowledge a fact as being a fact and question it as being factual at the same time. It is either a fact or it is not.

We all grow up in the situations we grow up in. We are all conditioned. There are many cultural and economic situations which shape our experience. But we are essentially the same. We have different stories, but we are all essentially the same.

Quote:
Quote:
" ... unless for some reason they were to travel. That is why slavery, female genital mutilation, child marriage, lack of religious freedom, etc., were and in some cases still are normal for some societies.


Even if they did not travel and were not exposed to the values of other cultures, having ones clitoris removed would still be both painful and unnecessary.


You drift quickly from the point. The necessity or level of pain is not relevant to the societal norm.

Who are you to say that I drift from thee point? Are you the "point-maker" ?

Quote:
We get that it is not necessary, but you can not excuse the pain based on culture.


Sure you can. We allow body piercing in our society and that is painful. You can even see infants with pierced ears.

Quote:
That is too easy. If you are not the 12 year old who is having an actual body part removed, cut out with a knife .... can you not imagine the pain? If you ascribe the pain to "some other culture a place" .... then you are not realizing it.


You cannot see past your own beliefs can you? The action is not in question, the pain is not in question, and the beliefs you hold are not in question. It is whether the actions are valid for a society based on their beliefs at the time. Not the beliefs held by any other society at that time or any other.

The society in Saudia Arabia chops off the hand of a thief as punishment. It is very painful. It is accepted in that society. It is not accepted in western societies, however, so it is considered a cruel and unusual punishment here. The society there accepts it and the society here does not. There it is fine, but here it is not. That is the point and one, it seems, you try so very hard not to see.


I am, in fact, acknowledging those facts. I am also questioning the validity of those facts.[/quote]

That is illogical. You cannot acknowledge a fact as being a fact and question it as being factual at the same time. It is either a fact or it is not.


Quote:
Quote:
" ... unless for some reason they were to travel. That is why slavery, female genital mutilation, child marriage, lack of religious freedom, etc., were and in some cases still are normal for some societies.


No. Even if they did not travel and were not exposed to the values of other cultures, having ones clitoris removed would still be both painful and unnecessary.


You drift quickly from the point. The necessity or level of pain is not relevant to the societal norm.

Quote:
We get that it is not necessary, but you can not excuse the pain based on culture.


Sure you can. We allow body piercing in our society and that is painful. You can even see infants with pierced ears.

Quote:
That is too easy. If you are not the 12 year old who is having an actual body part removed, cut out with a knife .... can you not imagine the pain? If you ascribe the pain to "some other culture a place" .... then you are not realizing it.


You cannot see past your own beliefs can you? The action is not in question, the pain is not in question, and the beliefs you hold are not in question. It is whether the actions are valid for a society based on their beliefs at the time. Not the beliefs held by any other society at that time or any other.

The society in Saudia Arabia chops off the hand of a thief as punishment. It is very painful. It is accepted in that society. It is not accepted in western societies, however, so it is considered a cruel and unusual punishment here. The society there accepts it and the society here does not. There it is fine, but here it is not. That is the point and one, it seems, you try so very hard not to see.[/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 4:49 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Repetion.


Last edited by animal-friendly on Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:43 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
You keep ignoring the fact that anyone growing up in that society would be only exposed to the beliefs of that society


Yes. Of course. Most of us have been educated in this society. But is our society not basically dysfunctional? This question is the most pivotal. We see the dysfunction and it's time we talked about it.

I am, in fact, acknowledging those facts. I am also questioning the validity of those facts.


That is illogical. You cannot acknowledge a fact as being a fact and question it as being factual at the same time. It is either a fact or it is not.

animal-friendly wrote:
We all grow up in the situations we grow up in. We are all conditioned. There are many cultural and economic situations which shape our experience. But we are essentially the same. We have different stories, but we are all essentially the same.


That does not make any sense in the attempt to acknowldge facts and question them at the same time. We are the same species but the conditioning makes a significant change in the outlook, which is what is being discussed.

Quote:
Quote:
" ... unless for some reason they were to travel. That is why slavery, female genital mutilation, child marriage, lack of religious freedom, etc., were and in some cases still are normal for some societies.


Even if they did not travel and were not exposed to the values of other cultures, having ones clitoris removed would still be both painful and unnecessary.


You drift quickly from the point. The necessity or level of pain is not relevant to the societal norm.

Who are you to say that I drift from thee point? Are you the "point-maker" ?


In this case there is no point. You clearly do not understand anything of which you are trying to speak. You seem to ramble in the vain attempt to make a point where none exists. This is quickly becoming more of a wast of time than anything else.

Quote:
Quote:
We get that it is not necessary, but you can not excuse the pain based on culture.


Sure you can. We allow body piercing in our society and that is painful. You can even see infants with pierced ears.


Quote:
That is too easy. If you are not the 12 year old who is having an actual body part removed, cut out with a knife .... can you not imagine the pain? If you ascribe the pain to "some other culture a place" .... then you are not realizing it.


What part of pain not being RELEVANT to cultural norm do you not understand? If pain is the deciding factor, the infants with pierced ears, or a circumcised penis, or any other painful procedure are being abused according to you yet you are not complaining so loudly are you?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5791
Location: USA
Wayne Stollings wrote:
In this case there is no point. You clearly do not understand anything of which you are trying to speak. You seem to ramble in the vain attempt to make a point where none exists. This is quickly becoming more of a wast of time than anything else.


If I may, it became that about 6 or 7 pages ago. :-P

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2014 2:00 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
In this case there is no point. You clearly do not understand anything of which you are trying to speak. You seem to ramble in the vain attempt to make a point where none exists. This is quickly becoming more of a wast of time than anything else.


If I may, it became that about 6 or 7 pages ago. :-P


I believe you are correct in that assessment, but I was more of an optimist during that period and before the agreement with facts but still questioning them position.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:02 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
You keep ignoring the fact that anyone growing up in that society would be only exposed to the beliefs of that society


I am, in fact, acknowledging those facts. I am also questioning the validity of those facts.


That is illogical. You cannot acknowledge a fact as being a fact and question it as being factual at the same time. It is either a fact or it is not.


Quote:
Quote:
" ... unless for some reason they were to travel. That is why slavery, female genital mutilation, child marriage, lack of religious freedom, etc., were and in some cases still are normal for some societies.


No. Even if they did not travel and were not exposed to the values of other cultures, having ones clitoris removed would still be both painful and unnecessary.


You drift quickly from the point. The necessity or level of pain is not relevant to the societal norm.

Quote:
We get that it is not necessary, but you can not excuse the pain based on culture.


Sure you can. We allow body piercing in our society and that is painful. You can even see infants with pierced ears.

Quote:
That is too easy. If you are not the 12 year old who is having an actual body part removed, cut out with a knife .... can you not imagine the pain? If you ascribe the pain to "some other culture a place" .... then you are not realizing it.


You cannot see past your own beliefs can you? The action is not in question, the pain is not in question, and the beliefs you hold are not in question. It is whether the actions are valid for a society based on their beliefs at the time. Not the beliefs held by any other society at that time or any other.

The society in Saudia Arabia chops off the hand of a thief as punishment. It is very painful. It is accepted in that society. It is not accepted in western societies, however, so it is considered a cruel and unusual punishment here. The society there accepts it and the society here does not. There it is fine, but here it is not. That is the point and one, it seems, you try so very hard not to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:44 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
In this case there is no point. You clearly do not understand anything of which you are trying to speak. You seem to ramble in the vain attempt to make a point where none exists. This is quickly becoming more of a wast of time than anything else.


If I may, it became that about 6 or 7 pages ago. :-P


I believe you are correct in that assessment, but I was more of an optimist during that period and before the agreement with facts but still questioning them position.


Which one was that ..... I could probably speak to it. Wayne, a mud-pack, when conceived ideologically, is still a mud-pack. The idea, even when politically conceived, is still mud. How objective is mud ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 6:51 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Fosgate wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
In this case there is no point. You clearly do not understand anything of which you are trying to speak. You seem to ramble in the vain attempt to make a point where none exists. This is quickly becoming more of a wast of time than anything else.


If I may, it became that about 6 or 7 pages ago. :-P


I believe you are correct in that assessment, but I was more of an optimist during that period and before the agreement with facts but still questioning them position.


animal-friendly wrote:
Which one was that ..... I could probably speak to it.


You already said enough here:

animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
You keep ignoring the fact that anyone growing up in that society would be only exposed to the beliefs of that society


I am, in fact, acknowledging those facts. I am also questioning the validity of those facts.


The fact that you do not recognize one of the last points of discussion underlines the lack of cohesion in your portion of the discussion and reinforces the idea this discussion is now more of a waste of time than not.

Quote:
Wayne, a mud-pack, when conceived ideologically, is still a mud-pack. The idea, even when politically conceived, is still mud. How objective is mud ...


Mud would always be objective, but the ideology you referenced in relation would almost always be subjective. Again this question reinforces the futility of such a discussion given the lack of understanding between what is objective and subjective it displays.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:41 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/1 ... 0840.html'

LONDON, Nov 17 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Almost 36 million people are living as slaves across the globe with an index on Monday listing Mauritania, Uzbekistan, Haiti, Qatar and India as the nations where modern-day slavery is most prevalent.

The Walk Free Foundation, an Australian-based human rights group, estimated in its inaugural slavery index last year that 29.8 million people were born into servitude, trafficked for sex work, trapped in debt bondage or exploited for forced labor.

Releasing its second annual index, Walk Free increased its estimate of the number of slaves to 35.8 million, saying this was due to better data collection and slavery being uncovered in areas where it had not been found previously.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 3:35 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
In this case there is no point. You clearly do not understand anything of which you are trying to speak. You seem to ramble in the vain attempt to make a point where none exists. This is quickly becoming more of a wast of time than anything else.


If I may, it became that about 6 or 7 pages ago. :-P[/quote]

I believe you are correct in that assessment, but I was more of an optimist during that period and before the agreement with facts but still questioning them position.[/quote]

animal-friendly wrote:
Which one was that ..... I could probably speak to it.


You already said enough here:

animal-friendly wrote:
Quote:
You keep ignoring the fact that anyone growing up in that society would be only exposed to the beliefs of that society


I am, in fact, acknowledging those facts. I am also questioning the validity of those facts.


The fact that you do not recognize one of the last points of discussion underlines the lack of cohesion in your portion of the discussion and reinforces the idea this discussion is now more of a waste of time than not.

Quote:
Wayne, a mud-pack, when conceived ideologically, is still a mud-pack. The idea, even when politically conceived, is still mud. How objective is mud ...


Quote:
Mud would always be objective, but the ideology you referenced in relation would almost always be subjective. Again this question reinforces the futility of such a discussion given the lack of understanding between what is objective and subjective it displays.


Borders are made of mud. Mud is mud. What are borders?

And what do you mean, ... "the ideology I referenced ... " What ideology is that? Ideology is the stuff of borders. Ideology is the idea behind the mud. If the ideas did not exist, mud still would, but it wouldn't be organized into the structure we call a "border". Both mud and borders are things, but borders are man made while mud is not. That's all. It's so simple, no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:37 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Quote:
Wayne, a mud-pack, when conceived ideologically, is still a mud-pack. The idea, even when politically conceived, is still mud. How objective is mud ...


Quote:
Mud would always be objective, but the ideology you referenced in relation would almost always be subjective. Again this question reinforces the futility of such a discussion given the lack of understanding between what is objective and subjective it displays.


Borders are made of mud. Mud is mud. What are borders?

And what do you mean, ... "the ideology I referenced ... " What ideology are you talking about sonce I haven't offered one? Ideology is the stuff of borders. Ideology is the idea behind the mud. If the ideas did not exist, mud still would, but it wouldn't be organized into the structure we call a "border". Both mud and borders are things, but borders are man made while mud is not. That's all. It's so simple, no?[/quote]

And DO remember that it was you that quoted this author:

"....Examples of objective reality would include the position of objects in space, the chemical structure of molecules, the force of gravity, and planetary orbits."

And I might add ....mud, soil, dirt, bricks, etc.

The author you cited went on to say that .... "Examples of subjective reality include all our opinions, ideas, and words for molecules and planets, ... "

Molecules are part of both mud, and the walls we make of mud.

" ..... whether things are good or bad or right or wrong, all thoughts and emotions, political ideologies, religions, and any social phenomenon. In other words, most of what we call reality is political opinion is a different thing. Actually subjective reality, and we often confuse subjective reality with objective reality, mainly because it seems so real that it seems impossible to us that it actually exists only within the human mind.

Like borders ...... which are made out of mud .... objective mud. The meaning we give to this mud is subjective. While mud is objective, the meaning we give to mud is subjective.

The author you provided also stated that ...

"Subjective reality can also seem like objective reality when many people agree on and share the subjective reality."

And have we not agreed that mud can be borders? Mud is objective ... borders are nothing more or less than the meaning we give to them. Borders are not real and no arguing for the objectivity of mud can make them so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:51 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:


Borders are made of mud. Mud is mud. What are borders?

And what do you mean, ... "the ideology I referenced ... " What ideology is that? Ideology is the stuff of borders. Ideology is the idea behind the mud. If the ideas did not exist, mud still would, but it wouldn't be organized into the structure we call a "border". Both mud and borders are things, but borders are man made while mud is not. That's all. It's so simple, no?


You brought up ideology not I. I assume it was ideology in general, but only you know for sure. Ideology is used to decide where a border is to be placed, but once decided the "mud" is often replaced by metal wire, fences, and concrete to create an objective division from the subjective decision. That is what I have been saying all along because man-made borders are objective divisions for any outside observer.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:42 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1473
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:


Borders are made of mud. Mud is mud. What are borders?

And what do you mean, ... "the ideology I referenced ... " What ideology is that? Ideology is the stuff of borders. Ideology is the idea behind the mud. If the ideas did not exist, mud still would, but it wouldn't be organized into the structure we call a "border". Both mud and borders are things, but borders are man made while mud is not. That's all. It's so simple, no?


Quote:
You brought up ideology not I.

'
Was it me that brought up ideology? Probably. Since I am just a "little" concerned about ideology, I may have been the one who brought it up. 'Ideology' is dangerous, both of the religious and nationalistic kind. If it was me who brought it up, I stand accused. Paint me with it, because it is exactly this that I would love to talk about.

Quote:
I assume it was ideology in general, but only you know for sure.


You're assumption was both intuitive and correct.

Quote:
Ideology is used to decide where a border is to be placed,


Ideology is the border !! No amount of mud or concrete or wood or any other naturally occurring material will make it so. Ideology is the border.

What power does mud or any other naturally occurring material have? We give those objective material subjective meanings.

Mud is mud, as is metal and wood, and whatever other material that could be used to place a naturally occurring material as symbolic of an ideology. Is it so radical to see the illusion of borders? It's not radical at all.

but once decided the "mud" is often replaced by metal wire, fences, and concrete to create an objective division from the subjective decision

Mud replaced by any other material is still material. What significance are you willing to give it?

The mud is as seemingly "objective" as any metal wire or concrete objects. The materials used are always real (objective materials), while the ideology is always conceptual. Fences made of any material are still fences and are as much objects as mud is. When these materials are used to obstruct babies falling down stairs, they are useful. But when they are used to create divisions that aren't real to begin with ... Do you see the basic illusion?

That is what I have been saying all along because man-made borders are objective divisions for any outside observer.


Who is this "outside observer"? Is this outsider observed not different form the insider?
Are they different?

I know this is what you have been saying. I knew it along time ago.

And so do you it seems. Can we now explore this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:33 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
animal-friendly wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:


Was it me that brought up ideology? Probably. Since I am just a "little" concerned about ideology, I may have been the one who brought it up. 'Ideology' is dangerous, both of the religious and nationalistic kind. If it was me who brought it up, I stand accused. Paint me with it, because it is exactly this that I would love to talk about.


I would never have guessed from the way you have tried to inject it into the discussion.


Ideology is used to decide where a border is to be placed,


Ideology is the border !! No amount of mud or concrete or wood or any other naturally occurring material will make it so. Ideology is the border.


Ummm no. Ideology is not a border or it would never change due to outside influences. As I stated, ideology is used in the decision of where a border will exist, but it is not a border which can be determined by an outside observer.

Quote:
What power does mud or any other naturally occurring material have? We give those objective material subjective meanings.


Yes, that is true to a very large extent since border placement is subjective in many cases, but the discussion was whether a border was objective and it is because the materials of which it is made is objective. Now, the border between two middle eastern desert countries, for example, will be more subjective because they are not able to be marked by those objective materials as well.

Quote:
Mud is mud, as is metal and wood, and whatever other material that could be used to place a naturally occurring material as symbolic of an ideology. Is it so radical to see the illusion of borders? It's not radical at all.


The symbolic aspect is subjective too. For example the swastika used in the Nazi symbolism has a much older connotation which is far less sinister.

Quote:
Quote:
but once decided the "mud" is often replaced by metal wire, fences, and concrete to create an objective division from the subjective decision


Mud replaced by any other material is still material. What significance are you willing to give it?


The significance that it is a border. That may be important or very important depending on the location. The border between the US and Canada, for example, would not be as significant as you approach as the border between North and South Korea. One is much more likely get you killed if you try to cross it illegally.

Quote:
The mud is as seemingly "objective" as any metal wire or concrete objects. The materials used are always real (objective materials), while the ideology is always conceptual. Fences made of any material are still fences and are as much objects as mud is. When these materials are used to obstruct babies falling down stairs, they are useful. But when they are used to create divisions that aren't real to begin with ... Do you see the basic illusion?


Yes, the basic illusion is in the argument. The use to prevent babies from falling down stairs is a division that was not real either. The stairs were constructed and they are not considered to be such a division for adults, so many of the same "illusions" still exist, but you agree with them.

Quote:
Quote:
That is what I have been saying all along because man-made borders are objective divisions for any outside observer.


Who is this "outside observer"? Is this outsider observed not different form the insider?


The outside observer is anyone not involved with the decision and in some cases even those involved with the decision might also qualify.

Quote:
Are they different?


Yes, everyone is different in some way. Some are more different than others.

Quote:
I know this is what you have been saying. I knew it along time ago.

And so do you it seems. Can we now explore this?


I suspected it. What is there to explore? The wisdom of the placement of borders over history? Many of those decisions were beyond poor and led to later wars and more poor decisions on border placement.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group