Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,299 - 4,310 of 6,170
Sometimes acts intended as evil have good consequences.
I can't not think of one, what acts would those be?
Trust me, my ego is just fine. Really. It's my tummy that need work. Oh yeah..that's why I like the comfort stretch pants at Wal Mart and Baby Phat. I am 5'7" 135. If I go to 121 lbs I look fashionable and feel like crap. So I will take strech fabric and tunics. And you are right I have a list of things I would change about my appearance.
In and of itself, an action is neither good nor evil I can not agree. Murder, genocide, rape, etc. are actions..I can see no good side in them. How can killing babies be a neutral action. Actions can be good, neutral, or evil. To me the slaughter of innocents more than a 'notion of evil'. It is the only 'label' I can think of, it is the label that it deserves. Putting a dent in my neighbors car, might be neutral. (Hey, Buddy, it's a work of art, now). But to torcher his child is evil.
take up Jainism and only eat vegetable matter that falls on its own. We as humans have a brain that can hopefully notice the difference between a Big Mac and a child. Oh, here's a classic for you Prob123: Suppose No, I would not kill Hitler the child. He had not yet committed any crime. For the same reasons I am against rounding up people with certain DNA patterns. After his rise to power..YEP, give me a gun.
NOW...You can't tell me that either of you think a childs life is the same as a Big Mac. Or that because Hitler was a child, it's ok, neutral to kill a baby!?! Some things are just evil.
Posts 4,299 - 4,310 of 6,170
Maybe it's just here in Canada..but I have friends and family of all sizes. and there is no problem finding neat clothes..just the money to buy them. Thank goodness for Wal Mart. BUT like I say Alberta is not the hot bed of fashion. OH Oh,..I love Baby Phat!
I can't help but think of a friend I have, who is 'way big'. but she knows she is pretty and hot. She can flirt and flaunt better than any of her 'skinny friends' and I have never seen her without the date of her choice.
I can't help but think of a friend I have, who is 'way big'. but she knows she is pretty and hot. She can flirt and flaunt better than any of her 'skinny friends' and I have never seen her without the date of her choice.
On the clothes/shape issue: maybe I should clarify: I shop at Walmart, Value City and Target. This is not about wanting to fit into high fashion. It's about wanting to buy clothes that fit.
To be fair, the problem is probably more that I am short and round rather than that I am round. I see clothes that look comfortable and cut right for my shape that start at a size 10 or 12. I have size 4 legs (if that), size four hips, size four chest and size four shoulders. On a good day, when I am not bloated, I may even have a size 4 waist. I just have a size 6 stomach, and no one makes clothes for short women who put on weight. I can either squeeze into a 4, not breath and look like I'm trying to be something I'm not, or swim in a six, roll up the legs and put foam in the shoulders and chest to make it sort of fit.
I am perfectly comfortable in my own skin. It's my jeans that don't fit. Maybe I should just ask if maternity wear has a juniors department?
As for attracting men, yes I know cultural values and perception of beauty changes. As I have said a few times now, men are not really the problem (though I still say men that want a little "meat" on the bone don't want it where I get it). You can always find someone to date. I also have many good qualities unrelated to looks that can be a draw for the right guy. That's not the point.
I would like the body I had when I was 20 (in no away a "10" even then) because that was my peak and I liked that body. I like this body too, but the old one was better. It just was.
If you are all honest, you would admit there are things you would like to change about your bodies too. If you are telling me you would rather be pudgy and older looking than have a young, fit body you are (a) either still young and fit and have no idea what you are talking about or (b) lying. Sorry, I just don't buy it.
You all say you want honesty and are set to go out and get lie detectors so that we evolve beyond our need to lie, but when I express a truth you think lack self esteem or is not PC or whatever, you all want to change my mind. Trust me, my ego is just fine. Really. It's my tummy that need work.
To be fair, the problem is probably more that I am short and round rather than that I am round. I see clothes that look comfortable and cut right for my shape that start at a size 10 or 12. I have size 4 legs (if that), size four hips, size four chest and size four shoulders. On a good day, when I am not bloated, I may even have a size 4 waist. I just have a size 6 stomach, and no one makes clothes for short women who put on weight. I can either squeeze into a 4, not breath and look like I'm trying to be something I'm not, or swim in a six, roll up the legs and put foam in the shoulders and chest to make it sort of fit.
I am perfectly comfortable in my own skin. It's my jeans that don't fit. Maybe I should just ask if maternity wear has a juniors department?
As for attracting men, yes I know cultural values and perception of beauty changes. As I have said a few times now, men are not really the problem (though I still say men that want a little "meat" on the bone don't want it where I get it). You can always find someone to date. I also have many good qualities unrelated to looks that can be a draw for the right guy. That's not the point.
I would like the body I had when I was 20 (in no away a "10" even then) because that was my peak and I liked that body. I like this body too, but the old one was better. It just was.
If you are all honest, you would admit there are things you would like to change about your bodies too. If you are telling me you would rather be pudgy and older looking than have a young, fit body you are (a) either still young and fit and have no idea what you are talking about or (b) lying. Sorry, I just don't buy it.
You all say you want honesty and are set to go out and get lie detectors so that we evolve beyond our need to lie, but when I express a truth you think lack self esteem or is not PC or whatever, you all want to change my mind. Trust me, my ego is just fine. Really. It's my tummy that need work.
Bev said: Everyone thinks shadow work sounds cool until you have to accept evil as a part of self and humanity and deal with it instead of thinking of it as a disease or freak anomaly.
prob123 said:I see a danger in not abhorring evil.
The thing to realize is that there is a continuum. There are acts that nearly everyone would recognize as evil (murdering your family, genocide, etc) and there are acts that nearly everyone would recognize as good (feeding the hungry, stopping senseless violence). The majority of acts fall somewhere in the middle. Even well-intentioned acts often have negative, even evil, consequences. Sometimes acts intended as evil have good consequences.
But it's really our own recognition of things that are good that creates the notion of evil: things that are not good. In and of itself, an action is neither good nor evil. The intent behind it pushes it towards one of those labels, but the consequences of the act may counteract that intent. So there's a whole intricate web that determines the label we place on things.
I don't consider it useful to abhor a label, especially a label contingent on so many other factors. I do find it useful to abhor a mindset that often leads to that label (evil). There's more to it, but I think Granny Weatherwax got most of it when she said, "It all starts with thinkin' of people as things." (quoted from memory; Bev probably has it in Esme's language center
)
prob123 said:
The thing to realize is that there is a continuum. There are acts that nearly everyone would recognize as evil (murdering your family, genocide, etc) and there are acts that nearly everyone would recognize as good (feeding the hungry, stopping senseless violence). The majority of acts fall somewhere in the middle. Even well-intentioned acts often have negative, even evil, consequences. Sometimes acts intended as evil have good consequences.
But it's really our own recognition of things that are good that creates the notion of evil: things that are not good. In and of itself, an action is neither good nor evil. The intent behind it pushes it towards one of those labels, but the consequences of the act may counteract that intent. So there's a whole intricate web that determines the label we place on things.
I don't consider it useful to abhor a label, especially a label contingent on so many other factors. I do find it useful to abhor a mindset that often leads to that label (evil). There's more to it, but I think Granny Weatherwax got most of it when she said, "It all starts with thinkin' of people as things." (quoted from memory; Bev probably has it in Esme's language center
)
Yes, everything else being equal, I'd rather have a young body (fizziplexer stops yowling).
As to your tummy,wWell, there's sit-ups and crunches!
But I think it's really true, what I said about inner regulation being a major factor. [fizziplexer stays green and quiet.]
If your ego is fine, your love life is fine, then indeed, what is there to say? I was just worried that you were disproportionately disappointed in yourself, and if so I wanted to do something to remedy that.
As to your tummy,wWell, there's sit-ups and crunches!
But I think it's really true, what I said about inner regulation being a major factor. [fizziplexer stays green and quiet.]
If your ego is fine, your love life is fine, then indeed, what is there to say? I was just worried that you were disproportionately disappointed in yourself, and if so I wanted to do something to remedy that.
You're confusing the action with its context. Killing vs. Killing a Baby/Killing an Innocent. Sex vs. Unwilling Sex. If you want to argue that killing is always bad, then you'll have to take up Jainism and only eat vegetable matter that falls on its own. Most of the food we eat was once a living organism and must be killed to be eaten.
The actions are "killing" and "sex". The context is what determines the label.
As for "evil with good consequences," WWII pulled the United States out of the Depression. The Axis (both German and Japanese) carried out rather heinous acts, and when the US joined in to stop them, it revitalized the US economy and ended the Great Depression.
The actions are "killing" and "sex". The context is what determines the label.
As for "evil with good consequences," WWII pulled the United States out of the Depression. The Axis (both German and Japanese) carried out rather heinous acts, and when the US joined in to stop them, it revitalized the US economy and ended the Great Depression.
Oh, here's a classic for you Prob123: Suppose you had a time machine and could go back and kill Hitler. Because of various calculations and scientific principle we have not yet discovered, the only way to kill HItler and stop WWII and the death camps is to murder him as an innocent baby. Can you do it?
Suppose you can't, but an evil sociopath follows you back in times, sees you spare the baby, and kills it to torment you (thinking you had gone back in time to save the child). Which one of you is good and which is evil?
Suppose you can't, but an evil sociopath follows you back in times, sees you spare the baby, and kills it to torment you (thinking you had gone back in time to save the child). Which one of you is good and which is evil?
Suppose you could only go back to that time, when he was a baby? Suppose that was the only way you or anyone else could stop the holocaust? If it's good to save one innocent person, why isn't it good to save millions of them?
I don't think you're being fair to Ulrike. She is not climing or manifesting an inability to tell the difference. On the contrary, her whole point hinges on there being a significant difference tof that kind. If X says "killing is wrong" with no further qualifications, then X is not making any such distinctions.
I don't think you're being fair to Ulrike. She is not climing or manifesting an inability to tell the difference. On the contrary, her whole point hinges on there being a significant difference tof that kind. If X says "killing is wrong" with no further qualifications, then X is not making any such distinctions.
As for WW2 ending the depression remember that there are many other factors, it helps a lot to remember that "monetary policy" "the Fed" and that maybe "policy" is a misnomer, there. FDR devalued the dollar through the last months of 1933, which might have provided a shock upward price to some commodities (good), and with the revaluing of the dollar at $35/oz of gold in January 1934, appears to have put the dollar at an attractive price point for international investors. the New Deal was intended as a remedy, by empowering labor unions and farmers and by raising taxes on corporate profits. Regulation of the economy was a favorite remedy. Some New Deal regulation (the NRA and AAA) was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.[5] However the Securities and Exchange However the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, Social Security and other laws and regulations won widespread support which continues to this day.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar