|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: On feeling sorry for people | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It is possible to rise above this level. And how does one do this? By thinking how great you are going to be if you rise above it? That's just more selfishness. It's all about YOU.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
This seems to be an unusual comment from someone who, since I have been here these several months, always has to have a thread that is usually at the top of the list concerning either their personality quirks, their percieved insults, or their philosophic beliefs (nihilism). What I was saying was that everyone is selfish. The "you" was meant in a general sense, as in the pronoun "one." I didn't know I had any thread on my personality quirks. Maybe I just don't remember.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
you seem to be chasing robinrohan around this board so closely lately if he stops moving you will dissappear completely up his ass. This comment is very inappropriate and offensive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Although this is pure speculation on my part(maybe he really is an unredeemable sociopath, for instance), everyone who is berating him seems to be making an equal and opposite assumption that his decision not to speak reflects a kind of disguised callousness, or the stunted nature of his compassion, or whatever it is that's making everyone so upset. My theory, Tusko, is that one rule in Ringo's and Jar's moral code is that one ought to be public-spirited and interactive with people, and so I violated that code.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
And how about actually supplying links to some of these things? No need for that. All you have to do is tell me if my theory is correct or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It is your theory Clyde, support it as best you can. What an odd comment. Is your moral code a secret?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
My moral code is laid out in thousands of posts here at EvC. It can hardly be called a secret. On the otherhand, you presented a Theory. It is as of now totally unsupported. The ball is in your court Bubba. It is your theory that needs support. Well, ok, if you insist. Here's what I've figured out so far. According to your system, people have to learn to love themselves. If they do, they will then be capable of loving others. The next step is to show this love to others by "just trying." Trying, I think, means helping people. It might be just a small action, like reaching up to the top shelf for the vertically-challenged. Even this counts as trying. Your religion is very inclusive in that it makes no difference what one believes--one can be an atheist or Buddhist--no matter. All that matters is if you try to help others. However, it's not totally inclusive. If one doesn't try to help others, one is wicked and left out of this large group of those who do in fact try. Part of trying is being interactive with others, not just close friends or relatives, but people in general. I pick this idea up from your comments about my experience with the Veterans, both in the original thread and this one. If one is not sufficently interactive with people, one has not tried: thus the criticism about not talking to them and learning something from them. If I were a good citizen I would have talked to them, but this I failed to do. I also get the impression that volunteerism plays a role in your concept of trying. One ought to volunteer sometimes for beneficial projects. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Robin, that is my moral code™, something I have to live with. I do not and TTBOMK have not said, that anyone else should live by my moral code™. They can't. They are not me. You can no more be me than I could be you. So everybody has their own personal moral code, and one is not better than another?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Likely some are better than others Would you say there is a way of determining, even if not quite with certainty, if one moral code is better than another? If so, the standard we would use to determine that would be the part of your moral code than is not personal, but which applies generally. Is there some basic principle that a good moral code must contain? (I understand you believe that morals are subjective---so do I-- but perhaps we can waive that point and just say that we cannot prove FOR CERTAIN that a given rule is accurate, but that we can at least make a good case.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I personally believe that a moral code such as that held by many Christians, that allows them to deny basic human rights to homosexuals is wrong. That is my opinion, no more, no less. Let me suggest this (you may not agree): Those moral opinions we have which we hold firmly, not tentatively, are those which are applicable generally and do not just apply to ourselves. For even though our moral opinions are subjective (not provable), nonethelesswe are fairly certain about some of them. Do you hold the moral opinion expressed above about homosexuals firmly or tentatively? Because I really don't understand a moral code that is merely personal. Surely there are moral ideas that we think apply generally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Strongly but Tentatively. I don't see how we can characterize an opinion as both strong and tentative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
But to get back to the main question, is what I have written below part of your moral code?
Part of trying is being interactive with others, not just close friends or relatives, but people in general. If one is not sufficently interactive with people, one has not tried. Also, one ought to volunteer sometimes for beneficial projects. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Sorry, Phat, I meant to ask Jar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If you mean generally doing little things when you can to help folk, then sure, that is a good way to live. Is it moral, I guess so, never thought about assigning a value to it. It is not the kind of think you do because it is moral while not getting the box down is immoral, it is just the right thing to do I'll take that as a Yes. I thought you assigned a great value to it. I thought these little things one does constituted "trying," which is a key point in your moral system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Well, I will try again. At least you are trying, which is a feather in your cap.
You don't try to be moral, you just try to do what is right. That's like saying, "You don't try to be moral, you just try to do what is moral." I would think that if one is moral, one does that which is moral ("right" means "moral"). I conclude from the following remark that you think what I did was not right:
You claim that your "heart went out to them", yet you didn't do squat about it. Did you ask one of the staff if there were any that would enjoy a conversation? We already know you did not try to talk to any of them. Interpretation: "You claim . . ." [I claimed I cared but I really didn't, because I didn't do anything]. The average person, reading what you wrote, would, I think, interpret the passage that way. And I think that's what you meant, despite your later protestations. I did not "try."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024