GENIUS FORUMS

Cory Patrick wrote:

Milli: You may see sweeping as inferior treatment, but giving the retard the harder job would have caused him much more stress, and would not be preferred treatment. Assigning tasks based on capacities is not elitism.

Actually, if higher capacities pay more money, offer better hours, and give more opportunites to work, I would say for most people it is.

Personally I witnessed such a situation like bobby's and billy's.

When the head carpenter only needs one man to work for him - between the two men, he chooses bobby.

Billy gets left in the dust.

Another example is the justice system.

What could be more elitist then the criminal justice system?

The (elitist) standards of society demmand certain behaviors.

To be caught as criminal in any way is to be treated unfavorably.

How friendly are you to bums on the street milli? Not as friendly as you are to the people you actual call your friends, I'm sure.

Why are they your friends?

Because you percieve them as sufficiently superior. They make you feel secure.

Milli: You are so amazlingly confused. Please quite fouling up the board with your intense stupidity

You are not treating me in a favorable way, you elitist hypocrite.

You are receiving fair treatment. ANYONE who acts like a dingleberry would get this treatment, hence, I am fair.

Cory,

I think I see what you are pointing at in your discussion with Milli. You’re saying that Society gives greater benefits to those who are of more service to it, and lesser benefits to those who are not. And that this mirrors the individual’s actions, as they too give more benefits to those they value, and lesser benefits to those they do not value as highly.

What Society values, depends on the circumstances at that time. If a war breaks out, the military are valued much more than during peace time.

What a person values, also depends on circumstances. A man, who values his wife, does so whilst she continues to love him. But if she leaves him for another man; her value decreases rapidly.

Society, and the individual, both have attachments, which depend on circumstances. Both attachments and circumstances are always changing – what we love in one moment, we may hate in the next.

This shows that our attachments drive our lives. Therefore: people who value living rationally, would have attachments that would assist in that endeavour. People, who do not value rationality, just allow themselves to be tossed about in an unruly sea of emotions.

Either way – it all comes down to attachments.

-
Sue

Cory Patrick wrote:

How could you possibly be addressing the 'wrongness' of Diebert's logic, without seeing, believing, feeling that your logic is more superior?

You know what I mean?

I believe his logic is flawed because it serves to place the wise in higher status than the unwise, as though the unwise are lesser people. Yes, I believe my logic is superior because I believe it supports happiness on a broader scale by dissolving the pecking order.

But there is a difference between my ideas and myself. Being possesed of more wisdom (which I do not claim), talent or skill does not make that person better, higher, more valuable, or more significant to the human endeavor. Therefore they are no more deserving of kindness than the common bum on the street.

Your last post to Diebert has been correcting him, challenging him, pointing out the potential flaws in his logic.

Could you write to Diebert in such a way without a having a sense of superiority over his thoughts?

Yes, quite easily. I am not superior at all. Pointing out potential flaws is not necessarily the act of someone who believes they are superior. My sense is that I have different thoughts, and I am trying to have a dialoge about those differences. I am challenging his logic because I want to hear his answers. I am open to being persuaded to seeing things his way, but there is no opprotunity for him to do so if I don't present the challenge by explaining those differences.

And second,

What drew you to this forum? Why dont you post at this forum instead: http://www.bibleforums.org/ ?

Could it be because you prefer a particular qualitiy of interaction, a particular quality of treatment - one that you feel is sufficiently superior?

I've never been to a bible forum because I'm not interested in bible discussion. I do not assume the quality of interaction or treatment would be any less than that of this forum. People are people, no matter where you go.

Milli wrote:

You are receiving fair treatment. ANYONE who acts like a dingleberry would get this treatment, hence, I am fair.

Translation: "anyone who seems inferior to me, deserves to be insulted"

Could that be anymore of an exact example of elitism?

keep up the good work milli.

Cory Patrick wrote:Milli wrote:

You are receiving fair treatment. ANYONE who acts like a dingleberry would get this treatment, hence, I am fair.

Translation: "anyone who I seems inferior to me, deserves to be insulted"

Could that be anymore of an exact example of elitism?

keep up the good work milli.

Listen, man, you will not convince anyone here that expecting fair treatment is elitism. Nor will you convince anyone that assigning job duties according to ability is elitism. You've gone quite mad. So quit your yammering before your humiliation becomes an even greater burden for you.

Peace out.

P.s. Don't be a player hater.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Sasquatch: How could you possibly be addressing the 'wrongness' of Diebert's logic, without seeing, believing, feeling that your logic is more superior?

I believe his logic is flawed because it serves to place the wise in higher status than the unwise, as though the unwise are lesser people.

Who is Diebert apart from his logic? Don’t be euphemistic here Sas-Q.

If you say Diebert’s logic is flawed, you are basically saying that Diebert is flawed.

You are telling him that he is inferior in regards to what you believe is true, which if fine, but don’t euphemize and emasculate the issue by creating this fictitious ‘self’ that exist part from the selfs logic.

There is no soul.

Sas-Q: Yes, I believe my logic is superior

Translation: I believe I am superior.

Sas-Q: I believe my logic supports happiness on a broader scale by dissolving the pecking order.

I agree that being stuck in (or attached) to a pecking order is rather miserable, but I don’t really think Diebert was sadistically pecking as a means to maintain and protect a pecking order he cherishes.

I’ve been on the form for almost a year (hardly long enough to have too much of an opinion) and I find Diebert pecks (very mildly) only on the rarest of occasions, and only at others who like to peck.

But otherwise, he is exceptionally restrained and hardly a trace of spite can be detected in all of the writings I’ve read of him.

Looking back at his original comment, I found his attitude was satirical, and it provoked readers to think.

And if anybody deserves to be hit with a satire reply, it’s millipodium.

Milli’s the biggest chicken I’ve seen on the Genius forum since my inception into this god-forsaken place.

No body pecks as much as him. He’s a chicken through and through.

Sas-Q: But there is a difference between my ideas and myself.

This ‘myself’ you speak of is an abstraction. If you try to locate it, I think you’ll find it doesn’t inherently exist.

Sas-Q: Being possesed of more wisdom (which I do not claim), talent or skill does not make that person better, higher, more valuable, or more significant to the human endeavor.

Well, as long as the human endeavor has significance in the sense that it is going through a process of liberating itself from attachment and becoming more happy, then I would say that those who think like you are more valuable to the human endeavor if the human endeavor is valued to be a process of becoming more happy.

If the human endeavor is meaningless, then nobody is any better or more valuable.

But if you value something, in this case making the human race happy, then the people who value making the human race more happy are more valuable than those who don't believe that is a worthwhile or realistic thing.

Sas-Q: Therefore the wise are no more deserving of kindness then the common bum on the street.

First of all, who says a wise man even wants kindness?

A wise man demands a level of rationality and logic from his peer and if his peer is stubborn and too set in his ways to think more logically – then the wise man will say “to hell with you”. “go away”.

He, a wise man, is no mother Teresa - he is no giver of charity.

If a fanatic Christian comes on to this message board and starts preaching the love of Jesus and God without excercising any basic logic, if he is persistant enough, he will be kicked out - - - - banned.

Very elitist indeed.

When one raises children with intent to make them mentally strong, at times one must sometimes be harsh or 'not-kind' due to acknowleding the inferior state of mind the children are functioning in.

That's not to say kindness, affection and providing a sense of belonging arent neccesary for raising children.

Cory: Your last post to Diebert has been correcting him, challenging him, pointing out the potential flaws in his logic. Could you write to Diebert in such a way without a having a sense of superiority over his thoughts?

Sas-Q: Yes, quite easily. I am not superior at all.

If your logic is superior to Diebert’s logic, then for that moment in time, you are superior to him given that logic is what you value.

If having a faster car is what you and Diebert value, then comparing logical abilities is irrelevant.

If you and Diebert value who has the best logic, yet you are comparing who has the fastest car, then the cars are irrelevant when it comes to determining whose better.

If you and D value 'who' has the fastest car, and you compare cars, well the man with the fastest car is superior.

Pointing out potential flaws is not necessarily the act of someone who believes they are superior.

If you and a group of people value the act of determining ‘what’ is most flawed, then the man who is best at pointing out flaws is the most valuable and superior member of the group given that the group values identifying flaws in logic. He the man who is most logical dies, then the ability of the group as a whole is weakened and made more inferior.

If the man who was the worst at pointing out flaws died, then the group would hardly be affected - perhaps it would be benifited.

My sense is that I have different thoughts, and I am trying to have a dialoge about those differences.

You are appeasing the pain of truth with euphemisms. You are just like any other human being. You feel inferior and you are working towards a more superior state of being in context to a system of values that you have established and continually modify.

Sas-Q: I am open to being persuaded to seeing things his way, but there is no opprotunity for him to do so if I don't present the challenge by explaining those differences.

In other words: I am open to changing, but only if I clearly understand how it will make me more powerful in regards to my values.

Cory: And second, What drew you to this forum? Why dont you post at this forum instead: http://www.bibleforums.org/ ? Could it be because you prefer a particular qualitiy of interaction, a particular quality of treatment - one that you feel is sufficiently superior?

SasQ: I've never been to a bible forum because I'm not interested in bible discussion.

Why are people interested in some things? But not in others?

I do not assume the quality of interaction and treatment would be any less than that of this forum.

Why choose this one then? Is it all just haphazard to you?

Milli: Listen, man, you will not convince anyone here that expecting fair treatment is elitism.

An echo from not too long ago......

He didnt believe in Jesus! He wasnt a christian! He was evil!

So we beheaded him!

He got what was coming to him. It was only fair! Here ye!

Those sinners don't believe in Jesus our savior! So they are going to hell for eternity!

Fair treatment for the evil doers!

so many manifestations of elitism, so little time and energy to write about them.

Some christians may be very kind to your face.

But they take great pleasure in knowing that you are going to hell for eternity if you dont side with them.

How elitist is that?

Sue wrote:

Society, and the individual, both have attachments, which depend on circumstances. Both attachments and circumstances are always changing – what we love in one moment, we may hate in the next.

This shows that our attachments drive our lives.

Yes, to be attatched is to be elitist.

To be attatched is to be friendly to those who are attatched to what you are attatched to and thus, one is consequently indifferent, harsh, rude, hateful or even violent toward those who are attatched to something contrary to what you are attatched to.

If one understands this, then any sort of negative emotional reaction we observe in ourselves or in another is no mystery.

Cory Patrick wrote:Sue wrote:

Society, and the individual, both have attachments, which depend on circumstances. Both attachments and circumstances are always changing – what we love in one moment, we may hate in the next.

This shows that our attachments drive our lives.

Yes, to be attatched is to be elitist.

To be attatched is to be friendly to those who are attatched to what you are attatched to and thus, one is consequently indifferent, harsh, rude, hateful or even violent toward those who are attatched to something contrary to what you are attatched to.

If one understands this, then any sort of negative emotional reaction we observe in ourselves or in another is no mystery.

not things themselves,but those connected to it stimulate the hatred in man...so man hateth the otherness which he confronts in himself.

dupe

Cory Patrick wrote:Sue wrote:


Yes, to be attatched is to be elitist.

You're so out of your mind. This definitely is NOT in the dictionary. Remember the dictionary? It's actually elitist to think to you can redefine all words to suit your psychobabble worldview.

Milli: It's actually elitist to think to you can redefine all words to suit your psychobabble worldview.

Milli, you're so out of your mind. This definitely is NOT in the dictionary. Remember the dictionary?


You have a very hard time posting without being contradictory and hypocritical.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Milli: It's actually elitist to think to you can redefine all words to suit your psychobabble worldview.

Milli, you're so out of your mind. This definitely is NOT in the dictionary. Remember the dictionary?


You have a very hard time posting without being contradictory and hypocritical.

No. the right to redefine words at your own whim is a form of preferred treatment, which is part of the definition.

Elitism has nothing to do with the concept of attachment.

Milli: No. the right to redefine words at your own whim is a form of preferred treatment, which is part of the definition.

Elitism has nothing to do with the concept of attachment.

Being attatched implies one prefers a particular form of treatment, which is part of the definition.

It's just like the boy friend who goes bezerk when he finds out the girl friend is starting to favor another guy.

The boy friend has an image of him self as the center of his girl friends universe, he believes or wants to believe he is more superior, of more worth and is more special in his girl friends eyes - - -he demands to be the favorite and takes a tantrum when the reality does not conform to the demand

Cory Patrick wrote:

Milli: No. the right to redefine words at your own whim is a form of preferred treatment, which is part of the definition.

Elitism has nothing to do with the concept of attachment.

Being attatched implies one prefers a particular form of treatment, which is part of the definition.

It's just like the boy friend who goes bezerk when he finds out the girl friend is starting to favor another guy.

The boy friend has an image of him self as the center of his girl friends universe, he believes or wants to believe he is more superior, of more worth and is more special in his girl friends eyes - - -he demands to be the favorite and takes a tantrum when the reality does not conform to the demand

A. Attachment and treatment are only connected in your insane mental contructs.

B. It's an elitist form of treatment ONLY if it supercedes the standard of basic fair treatment (that which you would afford to others).

Your desire to turn to the dictionary with me and then allow yourself to confabulate words into whatever you want them to mean at the the time is the form of preferential/hypocritical/double standard treatment the ACTUAL definition refers to. You're textbook. Now grow up and quit being a retard.

A comment you made a not too long ago on the hezbolah and israel thread serves as a great example of how there is indeed a strong relationship between the attachments you have and the way you treat people

Milli: I guess i'm old right, because I believe we should do
what is good for america. We should reject the globalism designed to destroy our country and we shouldn't ruin our
country with socialism and self hatred.

Your comment is a great example of an elitist attitude.

There are ALOT of people whose lives are quite invested in globalization, self-hatred for a noble cause, and socialist aims.

And you want to reject those people? I wouldnt call being rejected as favorable (friendly, supportive, affectionate) treatment.

Very elitist indeed.

Will you at least admit that you, up until recently, are an elitist and that you are working at not becoming one?

Personally, I maintain my elitist position.

Cory Patrick wrote:A comment you made a not too long ago on the hezbolah and israel thread serves as a great example of how there is indeed a strong relationship between the attachments you have and the way you treat people

Milli: I guess i'm old right, because I believe we should do
what is good for america. We should reject the globalism designed to destroy our country and we shouldn't ruin our
country with socialism and self hatred.

Your comment is a great example of an elitist attitude.

There are ALOT of people whose lives are quite invested in globalization, self-hatred for a noble cause, and socialist aims.

And you want to reject those people? I wouldnt call being rejected as favorable (friendly, supportive, affectionate) treatment.

Very elitist indeed.

Will you at least admit that you, up until recently, are an elitist and that you are working at not becoming one?

Personally, I maintain my elitist position.

Good for you.

Cory Patrick wrote:Who is Diebert apart from his logic? Don’t be euphemistic here Sas-Q.

If you say Diebert’s logic is flawed, you are basically saying that Diebert is flawed.

You are telling him that he is inferior in regards to what you believe is true, which if fine, but don’t euphemize and emasculate the issue by creating this fictitious ‘self’ that exist part from the selfs logic.

You know...I think you've something there. I'm not the same person I was four years ago because of a paradigmatic revolution. How do I know I'm not the same person? Many of my habits have changed, my emotional state is dramatically different, my perspective on social interaction is different, my ideas of what I 'need' to be happy have fallen away.

These are all ideas or manifestations of ideas that I--like everyone in their own way--use to define myself. So yeah, you've got me. Debert's logic is a component of himself so to point out flaws in one's logic is to point out flaws in one's self.

I think my problem is with the idea of inferiority because of flaws. As flaws pertain to jewels or works of art, sure...but to people, I disagree.

A dictionary definition of superior as it applies to logic: Of wider or more comprehensive application.

So now, it seems I'm arguing with myself, right?

Cory Patrick wrote:A wise man demands a level of rationality and logic from his peer and if his peer is stubborn and too set in his ways to think more logically – then the wise man will say “to hell with you”. “go away”.

I wouldn't though. Maybe that means I'm not wise, but I don't care. I only demand rationality and logic from my peers if I'm trying to discuss something that requires logic and rationality. If I'm hanging out with someone who is incapable or unwiling to do so, then I'll drop the subject and just chill with them. If they're unwilling to drop the subject then yeah, I'd say to hell with them, at least for the time being, but to write a person out of my life just because I don't find them locigal or rational is unfair to me. There are other aspects of personality that I find valuable, so the accuracy of a person's logic, to me, is not the full measure of that person's value.

SasQuatch9585 wrote:Being possesed of more wisdom (which I do not claim), talent or skill does not make that person better, higher, more valuable, or more significant to the human endeavor.

Cory Patrick wrote:Well, as long as the human endeavor has significance in the sense that it is going through a process of liberating itself from attachment and becoming more happy, then I would say that those who think like you are more valuable to the human endeavor if the human endeavor is valued to be a process of becoming more happy.

Again, you've got me. I am more valuable to acomplishing the objective of humanity becoming more happy as a whole because I'm better at inspiring it in others than a guy who's only looking to crap on your parade.

More valuable toward that end, but not as a whole.

Diebert might be a brilliant musician or artist, putting me to shame in those areas, so if you need a beautiful song or painting he's the man to call, but I am not just my capacity for reasoning, art, or music. I am all of my strengths and weaknesses, all of my knowledge and ignorance (a balance perpetually shifting, I hope, to the former).

Cory Patrick wrote:I’ve been on the form for almost a year (hardly long enough to have too much of an opinion) and I find Diebert pecks (very mildly) only on the rarest of occasions, and only at others who like to peck.

But otherwise, he is exceptionally restrained and hardly a trace of spite can be detected in all of the writings I’ve read of him.

Looking back at his original comment, I found his attitude was satirical, and it provoked readers to think.

And if anybody deserves to be hit with a satire reply, it’s millipodium.

Milli’s the biggest chicken I’ve seen on the Genius forum since my inception into this god-forsaken place.

No body pecks as much as him. He’s a chicken through and through.

I think you're right about his tone, and it's understandable that Milli would inspire such a response and you're right that he deserved it. I think I've been posting here for less than a week now and have already found Milli to be consistantly abrasive.

Milli...if it seems to you that someone's acting like a dingleberry it's because that's how you've interpreted their actions. Try to remember that the world is a mirror. Everything you experience is an interpretation.

And let me save you a little trouble. I'm a ass-jacking douchebag who doesn't know you from my own recum so why don't I just shut the hell up?

Cory Patrick wrote:You are just like any other human being. You feel inferior and you are working towards a more superior state of being in context to a system of values that you have established and continually modify.

Inferior in relation to my own ideal of how I should live my life (not others, I don't think it's my place), yes. Inferior to someone who has built their life to be closer to my own ideal, no.

Sas-Q: I am open to being persuaded to seeing things his way, but there is no opprotunity for him to do so if I don't present the challenge by explaining those differences.

Cory: In other words: I am open to changing, but only if I clearly understand how it will make me more powerful in regards to my values.

Again, absolutely true.

Cory Patrick wrote: There is no soul.

I agree. In fact I sold my soul a few months ago for three dollars in laundry quarters. Not because I needed the money, I just thought it would make a funny story.

SasQuatch9585 wrote:I do not assume the quality of interaction and treatment would be any less than that of this forum.

Cory Patrick wrote:Why choose this one then? Is it all just haphazard to you?

I liked the subject lines so I read a couple of the threads and signed up when I had something to say. I did sort of stumble on the forum though.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Cory: A wise man demands a level of rationality and logic from his peer and if his peer is stubborn and too set in his ways to think more logically – then the wise man will say “to hell with you”. “go away”.

SasQ: I wouldn't though. Maybe that means I'm not wise, but I don't care. I only demand rationality and logic from my peers if I'm trying to discuss something that requires logic and rationality. If I'm hanging out with someone who is incapable or unwiling to do so, then I'll drop the subject and just chill with them.

Yes, but for how long will you chill with them before they start trying to influence your destiny? No too long I daresay! If you were/are commited to a life of wisdom, you will not stick around too long.

I mean, I'm the same way as you in regards to 'chilling' with a person who is needy for human contact.

I'm a pretty sympathetic person. But I've learned that feeling sorry for people can only take you so far.

By feeling sorry for people and giving into their needs, they take your destiny into their unwise hands.

I feel that my tendency to feel sympathy for others is a weakness on my behalf.

I think this is because my sympathies for people in the past have left me exploited and drained.

I realized these people who are in want of others sympathies cannont be helped by giving into their wants.

For instance, there is this hopeless girl who calls me up wanting to hang out.

She is fairly overweight, is stuck living in a trailer park with her parents, and is afraid to work (she only likes to go out in public at night because its harder for people to see her) and has only experienced abusive relationships with guys and back stabbing relationships with girls.

She is fairly cynical and thinks life sucks, but then again she is always very optimistic about hanging out with me, and she insists that she wants to change her life for the better.

When I pick her up to go for a drive, our conversation is fairly limited to what she wants to talk about.

I'll take her to beaches and parks and go for walks, which is fairly nice. But as for the actual interaction.....well, lets just say it revoles around a particular 'body of gravity'

Often she speaks of her insecurities, bad situations she's been in, she talks about her favorite band; greenday, her unrealistic dreams of becoming a music performer (she doesnt even know how to play an instrument), which is just fine for the time being............but before long, she is actually speaking in a very seductive, and sexual manner.

every time I pick her up and give her friendly, supportive treatment, I end up being on the recieving end of her very sexual advances.

She also tries to get me to park my car next to the highschool kids who all park next to each other.

She wants me to park next to the rich, popular kids so they can see her with her boyfriend!

I find this sort of behavior dreadful.

The more friendly and supportive I am towards her, the more she fabricates plans to use me as a means to gain the most superfical sort of self esteem, and to project herself to herself as the sexually desirable creature that she in reality really is not.

There really is no 'chilling' or 'hanging-out'. Those are just words used to cover over the blind attempts at influencing the other person to yield to what will ultimately leave only emptiness and disatisfaction.

I've talked to her about my desires to go beyond the self, to deny worldines, marriage, attatchment and to deny using the act of reproduction as a recreational sort of treat - - -- but she either pretends shes interested (and proceeds to get me to submit sexually) or she argues in favor of all the things I want to renounce.

SasQ If they're unwilling to drop the subject then yeah, I'd say to hell with them, at least for the time being, but to write a person out of my life just because I don't find them locigal or rational is unfair to me.

Well, its not so much about writing a person out of your life as it is about not-answering the phone when they call ;)

To listen to them complain and ask for an experience from you is much too taxing, much too draining on the very spirit that one is struggling to even establish for oneself, let alone help others with.

Perhaps when I have an abudance of strength I'll be able to deal with needy people more effectively, but if I am fairly weak myself, then even weaker people need to stay away from me, at least until I am stronger.

SasQ: There are other aspects of personality that I find valuable, so the accuracy of a person's logic, to me, is not the full measure of that persons value.

I assure you there are people out there who you will have to abandon. Leave them to the devices that they are not even remotely interested in doing without.

Leave them to the devices that you yourself havent fully broken away from.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Milli: It's actually elitist to think to you can redefine all words to suit your psychobabble worldview.

Milli, you're so out of your mind. This definitely is NOT in the dictionary. Remember the dictionary?


You have a very hard time posting without being contradictory and hypocritical.

The right you think you have to redefine all words is a favored treatment you insist upon.

Favored treatment is part of the definition. It's a case of one thing being an example of something. Do you know what an example is?

Milli: The right you think you have to redefine all words is a favored treatment you insist upon.

Favored treatment is part of the definition. It's a case of one thing being an example of something.

Do you know what an example is?

Yes, i've given many examples, all of which have clearly revealed you as a hypocrite, incessantly in contradiction.

I said that to be attatched, is to be elitist.

That may not be directly communicated in the dictionary definition, however the purpose of the dictionary is to not provide the implications of definitions.

Definitions any idiot can read and parrot. It requires intelligence to discern the implications.

To be attatched to a particular point of view is to be unsupportive and unfriendly to those who hold a contrary view.

'Favorable' treatment.

Favor - warm, supportive, friendly, affectionate.

Despite you may muster the diplomatic grin and the empathizing nod of the head - you despise the person who does not share your view.

If your on a message board you openly criticize him, or even insult him.

Cory Patrick wrote:Yes, but for how long will you chill with them before they start trying to influence your destiny? No too long I daresay! If you were/are commited to a life of wisdom, you will not stick around too long.

You're right man. That's a sad story you told about the girl in the trailer park. I wouldn't keep someone like that in my life for long. Especially if I saw that they were beginning to conflict with my goals.

I'm a pretty sympathetic person. But I've learned that feeling sorry for people can only take you so far.

By feeling sorry for people and giving into their needs, they take your destiny into their unwise hands.

I agree. In fact, I was once considering getting a tattoo in some other language that translated to "Not My Problem". Empathy is a good thing over all, I'd say, but not at the expense of one's own happiness.

Besides, you can't make someone happy. They can only do it for themselves. The best you can do is maybe point them in the right direction, but I don't like doing that either, 'cause who the hell am I to say what is right for them? I'm still figuring that out for myself. And even if I had all the answers for my own life I don't assume it'd be the same for them.

The most I do is explain my strategies for figuring things out on my own. How to separate knowledge from assumption, and to just calm down and think rationally.

I assure you there are people out there who you will have to abandon. Leave them to the devices that they are not even remotely interested in doing without.

There already have been.

What I meant is that there are people I hang out with that I don't find very logical or deeply thoughtful, but they're still cool people.

Cory Patrick wrote:

Milli: The right you think you have to redefine all words is a favored treatment you insist upon.

Favored treatment is part of the definition. It's a case of one thing being an example of something.

Do you know what an example is?

Yes, i've given many examples, all of which have clearly revealed you as a hypocrite, incessantly in contradiction.

I said that to be attatched, is to be elitist.

That may not be directly communicated in the dictionary definition, however the purpose of the dictionary is to not provide the implications of definitions.

Definitions any idiot can read and parrot. It requires intelligence to discern the implications.

To be attatched to a particular point of view is to be unsupportive and unfriendly to those who hold a contrary view.

'Favorable' treatment.

Favor - warm, supportive, friendly, affectionate.

Despite you may muster the diplomatic grin and the empathizing nod of the head - you despise the person who does not share your view.

If your on a message board you openly criticize him, or even insult him.

Everything is wrong. Elitism is an attachment and attachment is bad, so elitism is bad, except for you, you're a good elitist. Logic and rationality are attachment to reason, so once again, the only pure thing is "no". This is the simplictic idiocy that drives nearly your every utterance. Sorry to truth you out this hard in public, but you mad me do it, mr. poopy pants.

Talk to the hand!

Cory wrote:

Sue wrote: Society, and the individual, both have attachments, which depend on circumstances. Both attachments and circumstances are always changing – what we love in one moment, we may hate in the next.

This shows that our attachments drive our lives.

Yes, to be attatched is to be elitist.

Being an ‘elitist’ is an attachment, and so too is being an ‘egalitarian’.

An elitist believes that he and his group deserve favoured treatment because of their intellect, social status, or financial resources.

An egalitarian believes in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.

Both are just plain old egotistical posturing, dependent on circumstances to hold up either idea. The pleasure the possessor of either idea receives, last only as long as the circumstances are in his favour. For example, most aristocrats prior to the French Revolution would never have considered their position anything but natural and correct. Come the revolution, and many of them were desperately yelling “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” in an effort to evade the guillotine.

Another example is the corruption that took place during the communist period in Russia. The state may have said that everyone was equal, but anyone given power during that time mostly used it to feather their own nest, without any thought for their powerless comrades.

So attachments depend on circumstances, and circumstances influences what attachments arise.

To be attatched is to be friendly to those who are attatched to what you are attatched to and thus, one is consequently indifferent, harsh, rude, hateful or even violent toward those who are attatched to something contrary to what you are attatched to.

The ego = attachments. The ego is 100% selfish, and therefore only ever acts to its own benefit.

If one understands this, then any sort of negative emotional reaction we observe in ourselves or in another is no mystery.

Nor is any ‘positive emotion’ a “mystery”.

Attachments are totally driven by the emotions. If you value living directly in Reality: that is, not have it warped and coloured by the emotions, you need to attach your self to things that will lead to the destruction of all your attachments. By destroying all attachments, you in turn destroy the ego.

-
Sue