|
|
Post by willied77 on Mar 2, 2008 0:43:02 GMT
We all, as human beings, have the potential for greatness, or obscurity. Our nobility of spirit, or our ignominy, depends entirely upon how we choose to utilise the natural gifts that the Creator has bestowed to each of us equally. Ancestry, station in life, and accident of birth, have little to do with it. The great have risen from obscurity, and the gifted have failed utterly too many times in human history for this to accident. So am I correct in thinking that bloodlines, ancestory and other ways of identifying 'special family's', are all but Materialistic ideals?  The EA degree has the most defined teaching on material objects, yet many Brothers miss it. Why? Bloodlines = Nothing Spiritual Light = The Word. The Word = ?? Well if I told what the word equalled then the whole point of our existance would be worth nothing. But yet out of nothing there came SOMETHING!! |
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 2, 2008 23:00:55 GMT
My point is white people have every right to practice and believe in a Hitleresque Eugenics and desire to wipe out racial degenerates, and if those racially impure are too ignorant or too busy killing themselves (gangs and the like) to fight back, then they deserve to be whiped out; after all its survival of the fittest, and those that are't fit to survive the Darwinian Struggle, must by nature's law be weak and must in time be subjugated, exploited, and eradicated. There is nothing pretty about base human nature. We are the only organism that can take a religion and belief system of love and brotherhood (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism) and turn it into a system and machine of genocide and murder. Pardon me ? Men (not women) did all this, are you suggesting that we women should do something about you men? Sniffles - do you really believe what you have said above? Maat PS - if you care to do a bit of research you will find many, many of the most beautiful and beneficial (to mankind) minds were achored to infirm bodies. Sort of like a trade off I suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 3, 2008 2:05:20 GMT
Wasn't it selective breeding that made us as a species who we are? Wasn't it the biased emotional - subjective choice on the part of our female ancestors to pick the best quality, most healthy male to insure her survival, and the survival of her offspring? Wasn't it her ... etc etc etc
Sniffles, you demonstrate an appalling lack of knowledge. What you are sprouting here is a populist view which has no foundation - it's more a 'belief' than reality.
Regardless of what you choose to believe the archaeological record indicates that all is not as it seems. Our ancient ancestors knew nothing about the Theory of Evolution and apparently neither do you. The whole point to Darwin's theory, as opposed to other competing theories of evolution, was that evolution was based on chance mutation - not contrived thinking. You also have to explain how a sub-species, in this case the ancestor of 'homo', with limited physical ability, size, strength, fleetness, was able to survive at all - strength had no part in that little scenario. What the early Australopithecus had was a heightened sense of community - of banding together in mutual support - an episode which anthropologists later recognized as 'tribes'. It is this tribal aspect which ensured the survivability of our species.
But never let facts get in the way of a popular belief system. The misuse of Darwin's theory to describe human behaviour is more about personal and selfish interest which largely relieves the wealthy Westernised nations doing anything constructive about addressing the inequitable distribution of resources thereby ensuring the on-going blight of poverty in the world. If we were to act out our communal obligations, as did out ancient ancestors, those who do accumulate wealth and prestige would re channel much of that wealth back into the community - because without the community those high status individuals would not survive.
Notice how the US President just gave all Americans lots of money to spend - just to keep the US economy afloat - an example of what I am talking about. Without a community no high status individual could hope to survive and without those high status individuals helping support the community no community would survive.
Please think a little more deeply before exposing your one-sided and skewed view of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 6, 2008 20:30:08 GMT
Brother,
If I may, just one point.
"Notice how the US President just gave all Americans lots of money to spend - just to keep the US economy afloat - an example of what I am talking about. Without a community no high status individual could hope to survive and without those high status individuals helping support the community no community would survive. "
The Federal legislature and executive did not give me any money whatsoever. What they have done is admitted by their actions that taking the money from the people in the first place injures the economy. We are not being given a gift at someone else's expense. We are having a small portion of excess taxes being returned to us.
Brandt
|
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 6, 2008 21:18:23 GMT
If that excess taxation had been left in the pockets of the taxpayers, we would have had more to put back into the economy. The economy is in the shape it is because of government interference in the free market (such as we have).
|
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 6, 2008 22:24:55 GMT
Both Brandt's and Max's view illustrate the Lamarckian view of Evolution - no one exists except me - and another example of the misuse of the Theory of Evolution to service one's own ego.
|
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 6, 2008 23:59:34 GMT
Brother John Ford,
I will ask that you don't jump to conclusions. My statement about money being taken from me and then returned to me can be seen as me being egotistical. It is could also open the door for a lot of issues that may not be pertinent at this time. I am pretty sure you exist and I would honor your right to exist as much as I honor my own.
Could the fact that you feel the need to demean Brother Maximus and I because we don't agree with you as a problem with your ego and though we exist we must fall in line with your manner of thinking or be looked down upon from on high?
Do you actually not feel entitled to the fruits of your own labors?
Brandt
|
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 7, 2008 2:04:43 GMT
Both Brandt's and Max's view illustrate the Lamarckian view of Evolution - no one exists except me - and another example of the misuse of the Theory of Evolution to service one's own ego. I see nothing in Jean Baptiste Lamarck theory of evolution that states "no one exists except me." Would you care to explain this reference? Bro. Ford, are you implying that you do not believe that the fruits of your labor are rightfully yours? If not yours, whose? Society's as a whole? If society's as a whole, why? Do you believe you are not deserving of said fruits? Do you believe that it is the function of government to redistribute wealth depending on need? If so, why? |
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 7, 2008 2:54:29 GMT
Do you actually not feel entitled to the fruits of your own labors?
No - and neither do you. Please don't pretend you do.
Sure, we need stuff to get by - food, shelter, clothing, education for kids - but after that - how much is enough? No - your thesis is flawed because what you are in effect stating is that no one matters in this world other than you. Your kids don't earn anything yet you look after them - or are you putting that all on a bookeeping system to be activated at some future time.
Think before quoting someone else's ideology.
|
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 7, 2008 3:07:05 GMT
I see nothing in Jean Baptiste Lamarck theory of evolution that states "no one exists except me."
The Lamarckian theory is that particular traits could be passed on through individual 'competition'. His classic example was why giraffes got longer necks - this was because they kept straining to reach the food source. This is 'the' theory that underpins much western ideology of today and the rise of individualism. What Lamarch failed to realised was how this trait could actually be passed on in the genitic code. Giraffes got their longer necks from chance mutation (Darwin's theory) - not climbing the greasy pole of individual competition.
So while you and Brandt and busy trying to keep anyone from re-distributing your wealth you fail to understand that it was reciprocity - sharing - that keep homo sapiens on course.
I'm just wondering where Brotherly love, relief and truth come into your Masonic journey? Or do you only give to those who come on bended knees expressing their continual gratitude for the crumbs thathappen fall from your overladed tables?
|
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 7, 2008 3:27:48 GMT
I'm sorry, but that is the biggest load of crap I believe I've read in a long time.
Excuse me while I recover from the fit of laughter it induced. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 7, 2008 3:41:25 GMT
So while you and Brandt and busy trying to keep anyone from re-distributing your wealth you fail to understand that it was reciprocity - sharing - that keep homo sapiens on course. Hi John From a masonic point of view, we are told we should receive our rewards without scruple or diffidence.... ?! Labour to refreshment, refreshment to labour again, that profit and pleasure may be the result ...?! Without the ability to accumulate wealth or whatever, and without the FREEWILL to distribute it as we see fit, how can we grow to become benefactors of Mankind. If someone takes what I have by force and re-distributes it they steal my opportunity spirit/soul growth. And then we have "the true reward, of ever greater service in His Holy Temple" ... ! "To Whom is Given, Much is Expected (Luke 12:48). I'm glad I don't have too much to worry about... or be tested on. Maat |
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 7, 2008 3:41:49 GMT
Any of you guys notice that when someone has no substanitive arguement that they always resort to ad homenim?
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
|
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 7, 2008 3:54:25 GMT
Without the ability to accumulate wealth or whatever, and without the FREEWILL to distribute it as we see fit, how can we grow to become benefactors of Mankind. If someone takes what I have by force and re-distributes it they steal my opportunity spirit/soul growth. Maat! I love you!  |
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 7, 2008 3:56:49 GMT
I'm sorry, but that is the biggest load of crap I believe I've read in a long time.
Well, I'm not sure what you are referring to here - perhaps it's your own level of intelligence.
If you don't think you will like the answer, don't ask the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 7, 2008 4:01:30 GMT
Well, I'm not sure what you are referring to here - perhaps it's your own level of intelligence. Ad Homenim I have yet to see an answer to a question that I have posed. Just comments on the intellegence and motives of others. |
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 7, 2008 4:06:51 GMT
Any of you guys notice that when someone has no substanitive arguement that they always resort to ad homenim?
Again you read into my post that which you wish to read. I have not attacked you - I've attacked your argument, such as it is.
I have also illustrated the underlying fallacy in your argument by a personal example. That you take offence is good. I'm trying to get you to think beyond the common conventions that get sprouted about by politicians, generally, who have a particular axe to grind - that somehow you should feel deprived in some of your wealth is redistributed among society. As humans we do this all the time in some form or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 7, 2008 4:11:15 GMT
If someone takes what I have by force and re-distributes it they steal my opportunity spirit/soul growth.
Matt - that is said out of frustration I suspect - unless you perceive the Australian Government as 'stealing by force'. Taxation is part of life - get use to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Mar 7, 2008 4:15:38 GMT
Max - perhaps you should go and do some study rather than just spouting what comes into your mind. I've given you the answer - which you have stated as 'crap' without any argument to the contrary - which is what? - Ad Homenim.
|
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 7, 2008 4:31:00 GMT
Again you read into my post that which you wish to read. I have not attacked you - I've attacked your argument, such as it is. Tautology: A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged manipulation (without touching) of the life force |
|
