Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Please ask for clarification

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.
Post a reply

Re: Please ask for clarification

Unread postby Quinny » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 12:33:47

Could you please clarify what you mean by that?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'M')y experience in life has been that women are, with few exceptions, horrible communicators.

They typically believe that you should be able to read their minds.


I am asking people to stop trying to read my mind. I am asking for people not to try to figure out what I might be "implying" with my posts. I would like them to ask me.

Example that drove me from the board (except for this thread):



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', ' ')

Definition = Erratic retaliation is a kinder, gentler warfare.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'H')ardly. Just not "unlimited." And certainly not as damaging to ecosystems as our version.

Just want to make it clear here I'm not advocating we return to erratic retaliation. For one thing, very few of us live in bands/tribes.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', ' ')
So if we pull a 12-monkeys and wipe out humans without firing a shot or bending a single blade of grass, that would be okay?



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')hy are you trying to read all this shit into what I post? You know I don't agree with that kind of nonsense. Why are you acting like you think I believe something like that would be ok?



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', ' ')Because you are starting to sound like Monte in this thread, that all ethics must be beholden to ecology.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')here have I said anything of the sort?



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I') really don't know what it is, Ludi, but you communicate a lot by implication and then when I call you out on it you deny it and get actively angry when I'm just trying to maintain a rational discussion. I'm not going to contribute to this any further because I know where this always leads, but I don't think I'm the only one who interprets your posts this way. It's not just me.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'S')o you're just pulling this Expletive deleted out of your Expletive deleted.

I am angry because you insist on misinterpreting what I post and I AM SICK OF IT! Just Expletive deleted STOP IT!


I wanted to know WHERE I said that ethics must be beholden to ecology or what I said that even implied that, and mos would not tell me. So I have no way of avoiding whatever it is that makes him, and apparently others, misunderstand me in such an extreme way. If I am going to be misunderstood so horribly, I would rather not post at all. Because I don't want people to think that I am saying ethics must be beholden to ecology. That is not what I believe. And if Monte and his followers think that makes me hubristic or stupid, or whatnot, that's the way I am and I likely won't change. I'm probably not going to start saying people like Pops and me, and Tanada's father, should die for the sake of the species. My personal belief is that humans are PART OF NATURE. Monte says that Nature is not merciful. If humans are part of nature and can be merciful, then it is a biological fact that Nature can be merciful. If humans are not part of Nature then they must be supernatural, and I'm not interested in arguing somebody's (Monte's and his followers") spiritual/religious beliefs in a thread that's pretending to be scientific. If we kill part what makes us human - our capacity for mercy and empathy - in order to save the species, then I don't see the point of saving the species at all. That' s my personal belief. I'm not interested in debating it.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Please ask for clarification

Unread postby rangerone314 » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 13:33:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schmuto', 'M')y experience in life has been that women are, with few exceptions, horrible communicators.

They typically believe that you should be able to read their minds.


I wanted to know WHERE I said that ethics must be beholden to ecology or what I said that even implied that, and mos would not tell me. So I have no way of avoiding whatever it is that makes him, and apparently others, misunderstand me in such an extreme way.

My personal belief is that humans are PART OF NATURE. Monte says that Nature is not merciful. If humans are part of nature and can be merciful, then it is a biological fact that Nature can be merciful.

If we kill part what makes us human - our capacity for mercy and empathy - in order to save the species, then I don't see the point of saving the species at all. That' s my personal belief. I'm not interested in debating it.


I'm always telling my wife she needs to be more specific. I asked her the other day where an item was: she said the living room. Then I have to ask further questions to narrow it down. An easy answer would have been: on the living room sofa, or just "on the sofa" since we only have ONE sofa.

I would consider humans being part of nature as an axiom. It is also obvious that nature is capable of being merciful; if you've ever seen a lion try & take care of the baby of the animal it just killed. It is also obvious that nature can be merciless just like humans; depends on the situation.

Given that ethics are just made up, I don't see a huge problem letting nature rule in on ethics or a good part of ethics. There was an island culture in the Pacific for example (I have to look it up somewhere) where they practiced population control pretty strictly, including infanticide--it seemed to work pretty well to keep the balance.

I'm not sure how permanently ethics would have to be beholden to nature; obviously the most serious consequences for ethics would probably happen before a balance is restored. Once people's numbers are either whittled down by voluntary methods or by involuntarily by nature, I don't see a reason why a return to compassionate ethics is not possible.

I'm not sure you can kill what makes us human in the attempt to save the species, and if it seemed that way, it would only be a temporary situation. Different cultures throughout time HAVE placed different value on empathy and compassion.

I don't think the Romans placed a great deal of value on compassion, so arguably Christian compassion may have played a role in the Roman downfall...
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland
Top

Re: Please ask for clarification

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 14:16:55

Please move your discussion/debate about Nature,mercy, and ethics to another thread. I do not want to debate it here. Please debate/discuss it elsewhere. Thank you.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')hat' s my personal belief. I'm not interested in debating it.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Please ask for clarification

Unread postby Caffeine » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 14:38:46

I hope that you continue to post on PO.com, Ludi. I enjoy your posts.

[smilie=5grouphug.gif]
Caffeine
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Please ask for clarification

Unread postby AAA » Tue 02 Jun 2009, 14:48:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'O')n second thought, I will be taking a break from the board.

I have failed here.


I would rather not say anything than be misunderstood in such a way.


I think taking a break is very important. There is way too many negative people here.

I actually joined po.com on Sept 18, 2007 as joeltrout, got very involved, but then took a break and came back using a different username (AAA) because I lost my info for the previous one.
How can Ludi spend 8-10 hrs/day on the internet and claim to be homesteading???
User avatar
AAA
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed 12 Nov 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Please ask for clarification

Unread postby uNkNowN ElEmEnt » Wed 03 Jun 2009, 02:32:23

Not eveyone gets a response to inquiries in threads or even PM's. There is no point in asking if the person won't answer.
User avatar
uNkNowN ElEmEnt
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2587
Joined: Sat 04 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: perpetual state of exhaustion
Top

Re: Please ask for clarification

Unread postby turner » Thu 04 Jun 2009, 20:55:02

Ludi,

I find your posts extremely informative and well argued and I'm aghast that you would give up here because of a few argumentative individuals. I can see that you go out of your way to explain your position clearly but unfortunately people will choose to misinterpret when it serves their argument to do so. Their tactics are not lost on the rest of us - we can read between the lines.

Turner
User avatar
turner
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue 10 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron