Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is It A Good Thing, To Check One's Bad Self?

Ego Society Politics Human behaviour Spirituality

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 15 October 2016 - 07:56 PM

Are people right to check their bad selves?



#2 Sammy

Sammy

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 04:21 AM

I'm not sure I quite follow!?

All I could find was this basic definition!!



#3 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 08 December 2016 - 09:12 AM

I'm not sure I quite follow!?

All I could find was this basic definition!!

Thanks for the indulgence. I think of the phrase as akin to guns, or to something as general as capitalism: not everyone can say it, otherwise society would arguably collapse.



#4 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2697 posts

Posted 09 December 2016 - 02:51 AM

no. Get Down with your Bad Self.


  • Sammy likes this

#5 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 11:36 AM

Thanks for the indulgence. I think of the phrase as akin to guns, or to something as general as capitalism: not everyone can say it, otherwise society would arguably collapse.

Why should guns or capitalism be considered "bad".  I consider them to be neither bad nor good, any more than the weather.  It is the use to which they are put that may yield either good or bad results, depending perspective.


  • A-wal likes this

#6 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 12:33 PM

Why should guns or capitalism be considered "bad".  I consider them to be neither bad nor good, any more than the weather.  It is the use to which they are put that may yield either good or bad results, depending perspective.

Capitalism is bad because it opposes what it needs - replication. Same with guns. Both are based on bias.



#7 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 12:52 PM

First, a gun is nothing but a tool for accelerating a projectile.  If I have a cow that is down with a painful and incurable condition, do I allow it to linger for days in pain until it eventually dies on it';s own, or do I place a bullet in a specific spot and bring a quick end to it's suffering?  Which would you consider to be "good"?

 

I view capitalism as more of a natural force.  I have skills that I put to good use taking care of cows and land for producing feed and milk which I sell for money that I can use for buying the things that I am not so good at producing. If I am profitable, I can reinvest some of the money into equipment for the farm to improve efficiency, or for hiring help and expertise that I may need or find useful.  

 

It seems a natural arrangement to me.

 

Capitalism, at it's best, is mutually beneficial for all those who do business together, and can allow for growth and creativity

 

The danger of and to capitalism is unbridled greed.


  • CraigD likes this

#8 fahrquad

fahrquad

    All I know is that I know nothing.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1209 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 01:42 PM

Capitalism is bad because it opposes what it needs - replication. Same with guns. Both are based on bias.

Capitalism is good because it promotes growth, innovation, and development, while Socialism (Communism) stifles it.  Replication without growth and innovation results in stagnation.  Please review the history of the Soviet Union and China over the last century before making a stupid comment like that.  China has been only slightly more successful (or less of an abject failure) due to the relative homogeneity.

 

800px-Lada_%287907387898%29.jpg

 

Lada 1970-1988


Edited by fahrquad, 27 December 2016 - 01:46 PM.


#9 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 02:09 PM

First, a gun is nothing but a tool for accelerating a projectile.  If I have a cow that is down with a painful and incurable condition, do I allow it to linger for days in pain until it eventually dies on it';s own, or do I place a bullet in a specific spot and bring a quick end to it's suffering?  Which would you consider to be "good"?

 

I view capitalism as more of a natural force.  I have skills that I put to good use taking care of cows and land for producing feed and milk which I sell for money that I can use for buying the things that I am not so good at producing. If I am profitable, I can reinvest some of the money into equipment for the farm to improve efficiency, or for hiring help and expertise that I may need or find useful.  

 

It seems a natural arrangement to me.

 

Capitalism, at it's best, is mutually beneficial for all those who do business together, and can allow for growth and creativity

 

The danger of and to capitalism is unbridled greed.

Capitalism denies people a sensible routine; moreover, it creates needless threats to people's lives, via things like the motorway and infrastructure.  



#10 billvon

billvon

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 02:25 PM

Capitalism denies people a sensible routine; moreover, it creates needless threats to people's lives, via things like the motorway and infrastructure.  

Nothing about capitalism "denies people a sensible routine."

 

Nothing about capitalism inherently "creates needless threats to people's lives."  Note that even the USSR, during its most communistic, had motorways and basic infrastructure.



#11 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 02:36 PM

Nothing about capitalism "denies people a sensible routine."

 

Nothing about capitalism inherently "creates needless threats to people's lives."  Note that even the USSR, during its most communistic, had motorways and basic infrastructure.

Can capitalism exist without motorways and infrastructure - and how does it not deny people a sensible routine?



#12 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2805 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 03:30 PM

Can capitalism exist without motorways and infrastructure - and how does it not deny people a sensible routine?

Capitalism existed long before the motor car let alone the motorway, was invented.  As for the second question it is you that is asserting that capitalism denies a sensible routine so it is up to you to justify your claim.



#13 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 04:10 PM

Capitalism needs less than 100% interaction, and it needs roles and functions (which are immoral) - the day that all people have spoken to each other on the planet is the day that capitalism is no longer possible.

What is so bad about roles and functions?  If you believe human nature is immoral, I suppose, but we all take on roles and perform tasks as a part of living.  

 

As for your assertion that capitalism is no longer possible when all the people will have spoken to each other, it is probably the opposite of reality.  Capitalism requires and thrives on communication. Just take a look at Craigslist.

 

Capitalism denies people a sensible routine; moreover, it creates needless threats to people's lives, via things like the motorway and infrastructure.  

My routine is that I get up and have breakfast, work, break for cheese and coffee, work some more, break for lunch, work some more, break for supper, work some more, finish work, spend time with my wife, and go to bed.  Seems sensible to me.

 

Motorways and infrastructure can also save lives by allowing people access to medical care.



#14 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 04:24 PM

What is so bad about roles and functions?  If you believe human nature is immoral, I suppose, but we all take on roles and perform tasks as a part of living.  

 

As for your assertion that capitalism is no longer possible when all the people will have spoken to each other, it is probably the opposite of reality.  Capitalism requires and thrives on communication. Just take a look at Craigslist.

 

My routine is that I get up and have breakfast, work, break for cheese and coffee, work some more, break for lunch, work some more, break for supper, work some more, finish work, spend time with my wife, and go to bed.  Seems sensible to me.

 

Motorways and infrastructure can also save lives by allowing people access to medical care.

Do roles and functions cause violence?



#15 billvon

billvon

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 04:45 PM

Can capitalism exist without motorways and infrastructure

 

Of course.  You can have capitalism if all anyone ever does is farm in their backyard.  (You probably won't be happy without infrastructure, of course.)

Do roles and functions cause violence?

?? No.



#16 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 04:52 PM

Of course.  You can have capitalism if all anyone ever does is farm in their backyard.  (You probably won't be happy without infrastructure, of course.)

 

 

?? No.

What causes violence?



#17 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 27 December 2016 - 04:57 PM

What causes violence?

Tribalism and competition mainly. I think I see what you're getting at but you're so vague.


  • CraigD likes this



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Ego, Society, Politics, Human behaviour, Spirituality