Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ignorance  (Read 39526 times)
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4808



« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2010, 01:48:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew,

It's all about context, isn't it?

Mature people get it, others don't.

Cheers,

Michael
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2010, 04:31:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Fair enough. And if the majority of the board feels the same, fine. As for me personally, I am afraid that "appropriate" often means dry and boring. And I know that the "appropriate line" is too appropriate when I start missing Mr. Schewe style (there, I said it).

Mr. Schewe isn't the only one who possesses what can sometimes be perceived as an "inappropriate style"

The irony to some of these self-aggrandized postures on ignorance is the rather amusing fact that, so often, the person we think to be "ignorant" actually knows more than we do; he simply doesn't share our own ignorant belief system ...

As far as the subject topic of placing someone on "ignore" goes, I believe this to be an infantile defense mechanism, arguably revealing a more negative revelation about he who ignores than who is ignored. I personally would be ashamed of myself if I let another fellow's posts get to me so much that I "couldn't bear" to read anything else he said after that. To me, such a response would only prove my own lack of emotional self-control. Fortunately, such a weak response as "forever ignoring" another person's words or beliefs, due to a debate, has never even occured to me, despite having been in some pretty heated debates.

I actually welcome heated debates, and I actually welcome beliefs being displayed that are totally the opposite of my own, as they give me the opportunity to see the world from an entirely different perspective. I may reject that perspective, but I at least have the opportunity to see that perspective and state why I reject it. However, in some instances, I may actually come around to embrace beliefs or perspectives originally different from my own, if my own system of beliefs proves inadequate to stand up to them.

A mature individual doesn't mind having his belief systems challeged. Having one's belief system challenged is the only way to test said belief system. If a person asks questions of your belief system, for which you have no answer, then the strong possibility exists that your own belief system is flawed and weak. Instead of responding honestly, if you prove ill-equipped to counter with facts, and instead you either respond emotionally---or just automatically withdraw unto yourself and clam-up, this is the polar opposite of growth. To be willing to have your own belief system shattered, if there aren't enough facts to support it, is the only way in which to clear-out the necessary room to grow and build a better belief system. Unfortunately, this is too painful for most, so they withdraw and "refuse to respond" anymore.

I believe this lack of an open mind, this unwillingness to get deep into the heart of passionate issues and beliefs, this default to shut-out other people and other views (if they directly challenge our own), is the very "ignorance" implied in the word "ignore" to which Bernard was referring on his original post ...

At any rate, each topic of discussion brought up brings with it new potential. A person with whom we butted heads on the last go-'round may shed some light for us on the next one. I guess some people feel more comfortable being surrounded by yes-men, who "agree" with them on every instance. It may makes things easier and less painful, but it quickly becomes dreadfully dull, and really doesn't afford the opportunity for growth ...

Oh yeah ... and finally, regarding the subject of "politeness," I do agree it is better to keep things civil and polite. However, I think if many of us (who accuse 'others' of being impolite) go back to the original threads and re-read our own posts ... and if we honestly note our own tone, our own sarcasm, and our own general attitudes ... then in a moment of self-honesty we might discover that we may have, in fact, courted the impolite theme that followed ourselves ...

Jack




.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 04:44:22 AM by John Koerner » Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2653


« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2010, 06:28:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I once was the moderator and owner of a forum for angling. There was a swear filter on the forum that I thought was a good halfway between no swearing and allowing swearing for emphasis, which Michael done. For example f***k. The problem with swearing was the repetitive aspect of it which can be annoying. If someone is repetitive then it is a failing on there part to speak and write properly? On the forum was a hide function as well as a delete function. It was useful because you could hide a post and think about the content and then re-instate it later. As stated I was the sole moderator. I couldn't get my head around having more than one. Why? If both had different ideas on moderation then there could be clashes of opinion as to delete and which to allow. If you both agreed then it was duplication. Better a one man dictatorship. One good thing about this forum is that the grammar is of a good standard and the vast majority of posts are readable without the annoying abbreviations of words.
Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2010, 09:39:57 AM »
ReplyReply

...
Jack

I preferred your deleted post.  It was more manly.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #24 on: September 07, 2010, 09:54:33 AM »
ReplyReply

I preferred your deleted post.  It was more manly.

Agreed. I likewise preferred your previous avatar for the same reason.

Perhaps this one suits you better.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #25 on: September 07, 2010, 10:28:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Agreed. I likewise preferred your previous avatar for the same reason.

Perhaps this one suits you better.

Absolutely.  At least here.  I could never be as manly as you.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7902



WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 08, 2010, 11:10:49 PM »
ReplyReply

A mature individual doesn't mind having his belief systems challeged. Having one's belief system challenged is the only way to test said belief system. If a person asks questions of your belief system, for which you have no answer, then the strong possibility exists that your own belief system is flawed and weak. Instead of responding honestly, if you prove ill-equipped to counter with facts, and instead you either respond emotionally---or just automatically withdraw unto yourself and clam-up, this is the polar opposite of growth. To be willing to have your own belief system shattered, if there aren't enough facts to support it, is the only way in which to clear-out the necessary room to grow and build a better belief system. Unfortunately, this is too painful for most, so they withdraw and "refuse to respond" anymore.

I believe this lack of an open mind, this unwillingness to get deep into the heart of passionate issues and beliefs, this default to shut-out other people and other views (if they directly challenge our own), is the very "ignorance" implied in the word "ignore" to which Bernard was referring on his original post ...

At any rate, each topic of discussion brought up brings with it new potential. A person with whom we butted heads on the last go-'round may shed some light for us on the next one. I guess some people feel more comfortable being surrounded by yes-men, who "agree" with them on every instance. It may makes things easier and less painful, but it quickly becomes dreadfully dull, and really doesn't afford the opportunity for growth ...

All that makes a lot of sense I would think.

"Yesmanship" is one of the worst deseases of our societies, and a very common one for that matter. The more you go up within corporations the more obvious the phenomena becomes. It is easy to establish a connection between most collective failures and this sheepish desire not to oppose the dominant line of thoughts.

I hope this example will not be taken for what it is not, but the way the US society handled the war with Irak is the a telling example of this disease, even if it was triggered and supported by organized mass manipulations of unseen scale. There wil be more of the same since I have not seen much individual introspection being made besides the recognition at gov level of some mistakes conveniently swept aside in the transition from one administration to another. Why am I talking about this although I am not a US citizen. This isn't my problem, right? Well nowadays we are global enough that it is my problem also.

Talking about Belgium, my own country, I could deep into the awful example of the Rwanda genocide where most citizens in the country decided not to move a cm to react against the lack of actions of our government when tens of thousands of people were being murdered. It was all too easy to yesman the agreed on attitude which was not to raise the point in daily discussions.

We keep watching these movies full of heroes, yet many of us (I am part of that all too often myself also) struggle to apply the same attitude in our daily lifes. Fear of risk is the main cause and it is often easier to attack/ignore the carrier of a message (France during the war with Irak) instead of considering the idea being proposed.

Politeness and respect matter because Nomanship required tact and smarts to be efficient. It is so much easier amidst our busy and stressful daily lifes to just let go.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 11:12:38 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2010, 02:57:47 AM »
ReplyReply

All that makes a lot of sense I would think.

"Yesmanship" is one of the worst deseases of our societies, and a very common one for that matter. The more you go up within corporations the more obvious the phenomena becomes. It is easy to establish a connection between most collective failures and this sheepish desire not to oppose the dominant line of thoughts.

I hope this example will not be taken for what it is not, but the way the US society handled the war with Irak is the a telling example of this disease, even if it was triggered and supported by organized mass manipulations of unseen scale. There wil be more of the same since I have not seen much individual introspection being made besides the recognition at gov level of some mistakes conveniently swept aside in the transition from one administration to another. Why am I talking about this although I am not a US citizen. This isn't my problem, right? Well nowadays we are global enough that it is my problem also.

Talking about Belgium, my own country, I could deep into the awful example of the Rwanda genocide where most citizens in the country decided not to move a cm to react against the lack of actions of our government when tens of thousands of people were being murdered. It was all too easy to yesman the agreed on attitude which was not to raise the point in daily discussions.

We keep watching these movies full of heroes, yet many of us (I am part of that all too often myself also) struggle to apply the same attitude in our daily lifes. Fear of risk is the main cause and it is often easier to attack/ignore the carrier of a message (France during the war with Irak) instead of considering the idea being proposed.

Politeness and respect matter because Nomanship required tact and smarts to be efficient. It is so much easier amidst our busy and stressful daily lifes to just let go.

Cheers,
Bernard




Bernard, I think you are expecting too much and also presuming too much power exists within the various structures you mentioned.

For what itís worth, I believe that the situation is really quite different: I believe that power and control are largely figments of the imagination and that nobody really has that much decisive input on their own. Certainly armies can be mobilised; no doubt that nuclear arms are currently under a sea near you and in the skies above us all. The question, though, is who, if anyone, controls it?

I doubt that the comforting thought of the man at the top having the final say is valid. And thatís what is rather disturbing. Perhaps the real motivation/control is far lower down the ladder.

Just rewind your mind a couple of seconds back to the BP Gulf event. Within hours we had red neck logic bringing presidents down to the seaside to paddle and poke about and utter utterly absurd soundbites; we had lawyers and cod accountants quoting the exact, imaginary, sums that BP would have to pay, despite true blame (how quaint an idea!) having had the least chance of being established; all local US engineering involvement was forgotten and the English were coming again to rape, pillage and occupy. Why? Because the guy with the straw hanging out of the corner of his mouth has a vote, and thatís what he thinks.

And there the power.

We are about to have a pile of religious books burned and despite the crass stupidity of such actions, all the powers that might have been will do is say tut-tut! Why ever not take that pastor and put him under observation in a place with men in white coats? Donít those same nutters understand what other such men-of-war Ė sorry, of God -  perpetuated in Ireland?  Canít he see that it makes him no better than those he condemns in the other culture?

Bernard, the world is a dunghill.

Rob C
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7902



WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2010, 03:41:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard, I think you are expecting too much and also presuming too much power exists within the various structures you mentioned.

For what itís worth, I believe that the situation is really quite different: I believe that power and control are largely figments of the imagination and that nobody really has that much decisive input on their own. Certainly armies can be mobilised; no doubt that nuclear arms are currently under a sea near you and in the skies above us all. The question, though, is who, if anyone, controls it?

Bernard, the world is a dunghill.

You are probably right to a large extend, but then again, there are conversations that matter and many times I have seen people who could have influenced the course of things prefer to shut up because they thought that following the opinion of somebody else would please that person, even if the consequences are bad globally for the organization. Inability to put together a strong case is part of it (why disagree if you don't have the authority to do so? this is where disinformation becomes a crime in that it deprives man from the freedom to judge), but yesmanship plays a big role as well.

Let's face it, Apple was right, we are mostly sheeps waiting to fall from the cliff. Smiley Of course the field we evolve in is of fractal nature, there are recursive pools of uniformity/conformity that form complex patterns, but our priority is mostly to conform to whatever mainstream appears relevant to us.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 05:02:33 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5782


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2010, 02:10:30 PM »
ReplyReply

... Why ever not take that pastor and put him under observation in a place with men in white coats?...

Ahhh... the good, old Soviet times... how sorely they are missed!  Wink
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2010, 03:05:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, Slobodan, someone has to take a lead!

And not, I hope, more pastors doing the taking, though I suspect this one has caused himself more pain than anticipated glory.

I was amused to see on Sky News this morning that there is also an Islamic gentleman taking part in this comedy of errors, a local guy (local as in from the same Fla area) who has claimed to have had discussion with the New York guy concerned with the planned construction who, in turn, says he has never communictaed with either of the Floridian species.

One accurate comment from a tv viewer was that the media has created the storm by giving space to these people - can't they just blog, and never be heard?

Rob C
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6207



WWW
« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2010, 07:14:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Not to worry. Both the NY mosque and the Florida pastor are self-correcting problems. Unfortunately the pastor is going to get a lot of other people killed too. But it's a free country. Both the mosque builder and the pastor have a "right" to do what they're going to do. A lot of us put our butts on the line to guarantee them that right.
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2010, 07:57:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Reading this thread I was a bit surprised.  Are we not reading the words/content of a post, rather than coloring it first by knowing who the author is?  If the words/content are of value it matters not who wrote them.  I suppose I'm in the "it says more about the person doing the ignoring.." camp..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 10, 2010, 08:11:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Unfortunately the pastor is going to get a lot of other people killed too.

This is disturbing.  For a moment forget the act of burning the Quran and the judgment on doing so.  (For the record, if the person owns what they're burning and it physically hurts no one, I don't care.  Any 'sensitivities' towards their actions would be mine to deal with.)

Now, we are going to blame a person who is exercising his freedom.. or say he "caused deaths".. committed by others he doesn't know without his knowledge or consent?  We are saying the problem is with the person harming no one, who is merely exercising his freedoms, and not with the person(s) would would kill because of this?

I must ask.. if we had a group here saying they would kill anyone burning the Bible or Tora.. and we're talking reproductions of marginal value..  where would our "authoritah's" be designating the problem?
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Chairman Bill
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1498


« Reply #34 on: September 10, 2010, 08:13:32 AM »
ReplyReply

And in breaking news, Sarah Palin is leading a Teabagger protest against universal healthcare in the US by burning blank sheets of red paper, just to piss off the atheists & socialists.

And whilst we're talking about ignorance ... the only thing shown to reduce ignorance is education, and if you won't engage with someone, you miss any attempt to reduce ignorance. And all it takes for ignorance to persist is that those that could educate choose to not to do so.
Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2010, 08:23:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm going to print and burn this thread ..... its my freedom.
 Tongue
Then I will stack up a pile of religious books, scientific books, stupid books, intelligent books and burn it ..... its my freedom.
 Tongue
I have some printed photographs - I'll burn these too ....
 Tongue
And some rolls of film ...
 Tongue
And then I will burn my toilet paper ..... its my freedom.
 Tongue
* Christoph C. Feldhaim bangs head on the table

Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2010, 08:30:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Sarah P. Perhaps she should listen to Fidel, who appears to be on a new, but similar course; interesting mating that would offer: the frozen wastes meet the burning Gulf.

And of course, on the notion of democractic 'rights' we have to be a little more careful. It would be possible to extrapolate an argument that the right to kill one's rival is also a freedom, guaranteed by whatever document signed those years ago. Because the act - of killing said rival - might cause grief would then not be enough to guarantee the alternative right of survival of the poor old rival. You have to draw lines somewhere, and if one nutter with a dog collar is it, then shut his operation and platform down.

A free-for-all based on everybody having sacred rights to do absolutely anything is the way of chaos; somebody has to stand up and say Hey! are you crazy or what? Enough is friggin' enough!

Rob C
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2010, 08:32:37 AM »
ReplyReply

All that makes a lot of sense I would think.
"Yesmanship" is one of the worst deseases of our societies, and a very common one for that matter. The more you go up within corporations the more obvious the phenomena becomes. It is easy to establish a connection between most collective failures and this sheepish desire not to oppose the dominant line of thoughts.

This is why I refer to most people as sheeple. Too many people want to "please" those around them, even if it means living a lie. Who wants to "cause a fuss," after all, and awaken the drunk driver? Better to just let him be and enjoy the ride.




I hope this example will not be taken for what it is not, but the way the US society handled the war with Irak is the a telling example of this disease, even if it was triggered and supported by organized mass manipulations of unseen scale. There wil be more of the same since I have not seen much individual introspection being made besides the recognition at gov level of some mistakes conveniently swept aside in the transition from one administration to another. Why am I talking about this although I am not a US citizen. This isn't my problem, right? Well nowadays we are global enough that it is my problem also.
Talking about Belgium, my own country, I could deep into the awful example of the Rwanda genocide where most citizens in the country decided not to move a cm to react against the lack of actions of our government when tens of thousands of people were being murdered. It was all too easy to yesman the agreed on attitude which was not to raise the point in daily discussions.

Well, I think it's a little deeper even than that, Bernard. I mean, it all goes back to dependency on oil and human overpopulation, does it not?

I can't speak for Belgium, but if the US would but relieve itself of its dependency on this product (and it could, if it wished), then not only would we stop destroying our world at such an alarming rate, but we would also cut-off the lifeblood servicing our own perceived "enemies." The US has the power to be an autonomous resource unto itself; the Middle-East does not. The Middle East is a desert, with but one viable source of sustenance, while the US (if organized properly) could sustain most if not all of its own needs. Yet we no longer take advantage of our own position. The idea that our country would waste even $1 of its own money "helping" people of other nations ... when our own nation is in such chaos ... is an affront to every single taxpayer whose money has been picked from his pocket to be given to someone else not even living here. It's worse than domestic welfare and such, which at least helps fellow US citizens (who really don't deserve help either).

But, gosh, just start talking about major reform and making major changes and people start getting their panties all in a wad. (We don't want to upset anyone, right?) I mean, you have so-called evironmentalists, who "say" they want to stop the deforestation of our world, but yet they don't want to address the perpetual global human population growth. AS IF the forests of the world won't continually shrink as the human population coninually grows. I mean, it's simple math folks: the more and more people that get produced, the more and more room we need to house them, and the more and more resources we need to help sustain them. Thus there will NEVER be anything but a continual deforestation of our world UNTIL the human population growth stops. It really is that simple. But, shhhhhh, we can't whisper the truth in public places, because the world is full of dull-headed sycophants who don't want to disturb the status-quo by actually confronting and dealing with the true problem. Oh no. Instead, we'll just buy more "environmentalist" stickers to put on our car, and we'll tell everyone we've "gone green" and other such meaningless nonsense. That way we can "pretend" that we're doing something positive while the majority "approve of our actions." Because that's what's most important, right, approval not reality?

So we'll continue to spend money feeding people who can't feed themselves, and then we'll scratch our heads as to "why" they keep creating more-and-more mouths to feed ... while we pat ourselves on the back for being "caring" people. Oh, and of course since all of these mouths need to get fed and serviced through the use of boats, planes, and other vehicles (all of which depend on oil, because we don't want to make changes in this regard either) ... we'll continue to rape, pilage, and desecrate our planet from still another angle ... and we'll also wonder "why" little countries can hold such sway and power over us.

You want to talk about ignorant? THAT is ignorant (dare I say retarded?). Shhhh, but we can't talk about the truth, because it disturbs the delicate sensibilities of those who don't wish to think too deeply ...




We keep watching these movies full of heroes, yet many of us (I am part of that all too often myself also) struggle to apply the same attitude in our daily lifes. Fear of risk is the main cause and it is often easier to attack/ignore the carrier of a message (France during the war with Irak) instead of considering the idea being proposed.

I agree that most want to do this. It's too unpleasant to think about the harsh realities of the direction we're headed; it's far more pleasant to photograph a sunset, to play polo, or to enter another boat race ...




Politeness and respect matter because Nomanship required tact and smarts to be efficient. It is so much easier amidst our busy and stressful daily lifes to just let go.
Cheers,
Bernard

Politeness can be good and all, but every now and then you have to shake the tree to get the apples to come down ... and, yes, it is so much easier to go to a gas station, fill-up our tanks, and buy soda and chips for the road ...

Jack




.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 08:59:31 AM by John Koerner » Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1447



WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2010, 09:11:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm going to print and burn this thread ..... its my freedom.
 Tongue
Then I will stack up a pile of religious books, scientific books, stupid books, intelligent books and burn it ..... its my freedom.
 Tongue
I have some printed photographs - I'll burn these too ....
 Tongue
And some rolls of film ...
 Tongue
And then I will burn my toilet paper ..... its my freedom.
 Tongue
* Christoph C. Feldhaim bangs head on the table



The same holds.. if you feel the need to exercise your freedoms by burning everything.. okay.  I don't really care.  And if someone decides to go kill people because you're burning your toilet paper, I'd say the problem is with them and not you.

Though.. if you burn ALL your toilet paper and I'm standing next to you in line somewhere.. I might recommend buying some more.   Roll Eyes
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2010, 09:31:08 AM »
ReplyReply

..... And if someone decides to go kill people because you're burning your toilet paper, I'd say the problem is with them and not you.....
* Christoph C. Feldhaim sighs in relief ....
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad