Pioneer1 Posted May 4 Author Report Posted May 4 frankster No.... Tolerance is a CHARACTERISTIC of non-violence Violence has characteristics. NON-violence is simply the ABSCENCE of violence. Tolerance is not Non-violent What???? How can you be tolerant of something and violent toward it as the same time? Perhaps you've been a little smoking TOO much of that sticky-green, lol. Malicious means to have cause harm or to intent to cause harm.. I repeat, malicious DOES NOT necessarily mean violent. Violence can be expressed a variety of forms.....primarily Physical Psychological Verbal Emotional Personal(reputation) Financial etc There IS no "verbal" or "emotional" violence. Violence is physical in nature whether it's ACTUAL violence or the THREAT of violence. Quote violence noun vi·o·lence ˈvī-lən(t)s ˈvī-ə- 1 a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence Harm is to cause physical damage or injury. Not necessarily. You can harm someone emotionally or harm their reputation without putting hands on them. How Republican of you......rewriting an obvious truth with falsity whilst the truth is still evident. ...and how DEMOCRAT of you, using the same failed tactics over and over again but expecting success, lol. You may not have used the word violent....instead in the proof above you used the word - malicious the meaning is clear. Yes...very clear. Which is why your attempts to SPIN my words and make them mean something other than what I intend for them to mean is so "malicious" Malcolm is not accusing....he is asking? - big difference. Malcolm already accept that fact....that many black people grew up hating themselves and the situation they are in... Exactly. Malcolm is speaking of it being a "given" that so many Black people hate themselves and hate being around eachother. Now, you won't accuse HIM of being racist and implying that Black folks are more "hateful" than White folks, will you? Please provide the quote from Garvey that supports your assertions... "There are 400 million Africans in the world who have Negro blood coursing through their veins, and we believe that the time has come to unite these 400 million people toward the one common purpose of bettering their condition. The great problem of the Negro for the last 500 years has been that of disunity. No one or no organization ever succeeded in uniting the Negro race. But within the last four years, the Universal Negro Improvement Association has worked wonders. It is bringing together in one fold four million organized Negroes who are scattered in all parts of the world." https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5124 If you are going to practice this level of denial...then in future our dialogue will be ones of an exchange of opinions - with no regards to facts and truths. No regards to facts and truths??? Looks like you got a head start on THAT a loooong time ago, lol.
frankster Posted May 5 Report Posted May 5 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster No.... Tolerance is a CHARACTERISTIC of non-violence Violence has characteristics. NON-violence is simply the ABSCENCE of violence. Yes Most people who practice Non-violence tend to be very tolerant Not all tolerant people are Non-violent 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Tolerance is not Non-violent What???? How can you be tolerant of something and violent toward it as the same time? Perhaps you've been a little smoking TOO much of that sticky-green, lol. There is a limit to toleration beyond which it will be forsaken for violence.... Non violence means there is no point at wish you should be violence....the moment you become violent - Non violence ends. Right Now I cannot have enuff. 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Malicious means to have cause harm or to intent to cause harm.. I repeat, malicious DOES NOT necessarily mean violent. It always does.... 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Violence can be expressed a variety of forms.....primarily Physical Psychological Verbal Emotional Personal(reputation) Financial etc There IS no "verbal" or "emotional" violence. Violence is physical in nature whether it's ACTUAL violence or the THREAT of violence. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence Violence can also be an expression....see below from your own link 1 a : the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure 2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage 3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force the violence of the storm b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Harm is to cause physical damage or injury. Not necessarily. You can harm someone emotionally or harm their reputation without putting hands on them. Exactly.... I express angry feelings like threats which can result in someone having an heart attack out of sheer shock or fear 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: How Republican of you......rewriting an obvious truth with falsity whilst the truth is still evident. ...and how DEMOCRAT of you, using the same failed tactics over and over again but expecting success, lol. Sometime it just a hard nut to crack 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You may not have used the word violent....instead in the proof above you used the word - malicious the meaning is clear. Yes...very clear. Which is why your attempts to SPIN my words and make them mean something other than what I intend for them to mean is so "malicious" Run all you want it is clear to me what you meant... 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Malcolm is not accusing....he is asking? - big difference. Malcolm already accept that fact....that many black people grew up hating themselves and the situation they are in... Exactly. Malcolm is speaking of it being a "given" that so many Black people hate themselves and hate being around eachother. Now, you won't accuse HIM of being racist and implying that Black folks are more "hateful" than White folks, will you? Show where he said black folks are mor hateful or violent than white folks... 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Please provide the quote from Garvey that supports your assertions... "There are 400 million Africans in the world who have Negro blood coursing through their veins, and we believe that the time has come to unite these 400 million people toward the one common purpose of bettering their condition. The great problem of the Negro for the last 500 years has been that of disunity. No one or no organization ever succeeded in uniting the Negro race. But within the last four years, the Universal Negro Improvement Association has worked wonders. It is bringing together in one fold four million organized Negroes who are scattered in all parts of the world." https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5124 That says nothing about blacks being more malicious/violent....than anybody. 13 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If you are going to practice this level of denial...then in future our dialogue will be ones of an exchange of opinions - with no regards to facts and truths. No regards to facts and truths??? Looks like you got a head start on THAT a loooong time ago, lol. You have yet to provide a link stating that Africans are more violent....please
Pioneer1 Posted May 8 Author Report Posted May 8 On 5/4/2025 at 10:51 PM, frankster said: That says nothing about blacks being more malicious/violent....than anybody. -Neither did I.
frankster Posted May 8 Report Posted May 8 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: -Neither did I. Are you really being dishonest over a simply discussion....that ia in print/recorded - so Republican of you Let me quote You again @Pioneer1 To be clear, when I speak of Black folks being tribal, I mean "tribal" as in grouping up for malicious purposes simply to oppose another Black person. Whether it's in a nation, a school, or on the job. See other Black people and just form gangs and cliques so people can have your "back" as you go out attack another brother or sister.
Pioneer1 Posted May 8 Author Report Posted May 8 frankster Not all tolerant people are Non-violent Man, what???? Ok, so can you please give me an example of someone who was tolerant but violent? There is a limit to toleration beyond which it will be forsaken for violence.... For most people there may be a limit to "toleration" on a particular issue but a TOLERANT person is tolerant in nearly all issues if it's part of their nature. Also along those lines, a person who commits violence doesn't necessarily mean they ARE violent. It could have been an exceptional thing that rarely happens. So in that regard a tolerant person CAN commit violence under rare circumstances but a tolerant person is NOT a VIOLENT person. Right Now I cannot have enuff. Michael Jackson said then DON'T STOP 'till you get enough...lol. It always does.... You're wrong, plain and simple. I express angry feelings like threats which can result in someone having an heart attack out of sheer shock or fear That would be included in PHYSICAL violence in my opinion. However going around accusing someone of cheating on their spouse is "harming" their reputation but doesn't involve physical violence would be a better example. Again.... It's "harmful" but not violent. Run all you want it is clear to me what you meant... Clarity is often a feature of the deluded mind. Some people are "clear" that they are Jesus Christ, although they are living in their mother's basement. Nigga talking about he can "raise the dead" and can't even raise dead flies...lol. Show where he said black folks are mor hateful or violent than white folks... Why should I when he hasn't? You have yet to provide a link stating that Africans are more violent....please On this question also, why should I when I haven't said such a thing? That says nothing about blacks being more malicious/violent....than anybody. I repeat...NEITHER HAVE I. 1. You said malicious/violent, while in my quote I clearly said "malicious"...no mention of being more violent. You take my words out of context to TRY to paint a false narrative. 2. Furthermore, I used "malicious" in the context of our people GROUPING UP TOGETHER to oppose and attack eachother more so than Caucasians. Not that we are malicious or violent than them in general, but TEND to be more malicious when it comes to grouping up to going against and opposing eachother. YOUR Bible advises you that with all thy getting....get UNDERSTANDING.
frankster Posted May 8 Report Posted May 8 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Not all tolerant people are Non-violent Man, what???? Ok, so can you please give me an example of someone who was tolerant but violent? The meaning of the word tolerance mean to allow or bear...it has its limits One can not be totally tolerant without limits....then intolerance will win - at some point the tolerant must be willing to defend tolerance against intolerance. So below is an example of tolerant people resisting intolerance in the form of proslytizing. What is especially interesting is that Buddhist proponents of anti-Muslim discourse often assert that Myanmar is under threat from Muslims precisely because Buddhism is, they say, a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion. In arguing that Rohingya are illegal immigrants who promote an exclusivist and proselytising religion that is bent on geographical and cultural conquest through conversion and marriage, some Buddhist leaders in Myanmar thus exploit the very same presumption of uniform tolerance and peacefulness that makes many westerners uniquely surprised by Buddhist violence. https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/why-are-we-surprised-when-buddhists-are-violent-1.2184812 The meaning of the word tolerance mean to allow or bear...it has its limits One can not be totally tolerant without limits....then intolerance will win - at some point the tolerant must be willing to defend tolerance against intolerance. 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: There is a limit to toleration beyond which it will be forsaken for violence.... For most people there may be a limit to "toleration" on a particular issue but a TOLERANT person is tolerant in nearly all issues if it's part of their nature. You are confusing Pacifism with tolerance. 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Also along those lines, a person who commits violence doesn't necessarily mean they ARE violent. It could have been an exceptional thing that rarely happens. True 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: So in that regard a tolerant person CAN commit violence under rare circumstances but a tolerant person is NOT a VIOLENT person. true 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Right Now I cannot have enuff. Michael Jackson said then DON'T STOP 'till you get enough...lol. peng 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: It always does.... You're wrong, plain and simple. provide your evidence 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I express angry feelings like threats which can result in someone having an heart attack out of sheer shock or fear That would be included in PHYSICAL violence in my opinion. However going around accusing someone of cheating on their spouse is "harming" their reputation but doesn't involve physical violence would be a better example. Again.... It's "harmful" but not violent. Here are some forms of Violence. Verbal Violence: While less tangible than physical violence, verbal violence can be equally damaging, inflicting emotional harm through the use of words or language. This includes insults, threats, humiliation, and other forms of verbal abuse aimed at belittling or intimidating others. Verbal violence erodes self-esteem, undermines confidence, and perpetuates cycles of trauma and insecurity. Emotional Violence: Emotional violence targets the psychological well-being of individuals, seeking to control, manipulate, or coerce them through psychological means. This can take the form of gaslighting, manipulation, emotional blackmail, or psychological abuse, leaving victims feeling isolated, powerless, and emotionally scarred. Emotional violence often occurs in intimate relationships but can also manifest in other settings, such as workplaces or educational institutions. Structural Violence: Unlike other forms of violence, structural violence operates at a systemic level, perpetuating inequalities and injustices through social, political, and economic structures. This includes systemic racism, poverty, discrimination, and other forms of structural oppression that disproportionately impact marginalized groups. Structural violence often goes unnoticed or unrecognized but has profound and far-reaching consequences for the health, well-being, and life chances of individuals and communities. https://www.victimsofviolencefoundation.org/unveiling-the-spectrum-of-violence-understanding-its-forms-and-impact/ 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Run all you want it is clear to me what you meant... Clarity is often a feature of the deluded mind. Some people are "clear" that they are Jesus Christ, although they are living in their mother's basement. Nigga talking about he can "raise the dead" and can't even raise dead flies...lol. Real funny....you still running or shucking and jiving? 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Show where he said black folks are mor hateful or violent than white folks... Why should I when he hasn't? So you posted something that does not back your claim... Why you try to use our ancestors to support your lies??? 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You have yet to provide a link stating that Africans are more violent....please On this question also, why should I when I haven't said such a thing? You have....malicious and attacking is enough 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That says nothing about blacks being more malicious/violent....than anybody. I repeat...NEITHER HAVE I. 1. You said malicious/violent, while in my quote I clearly said "malicious"...no mention of being more violent. You take my words out of context to TRY to paint a false narrative. Malicious is violent.. 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: 2. Furthermore, I used "malicious" in the context of our people GROUPING UP TOGETHER to oppose and attack eachother more so than Caucasians. Not that we are malicious or violent than them in general, but TEND to be more malicious when it comes to grouping up to going against and opposing eachother. Walking it back 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: YOUR Bible advises you that with all thy getting....get UNDERSTANDING. yes
Pioneer1 Posted May 10 Author Report Posted May 10 On 5/8/2025 at 7:42 AM, frankster said: The meaning of the word tolerance mean to allow or bear...it has its limits One can not be totally tolerant without limits....then intolerance will win - at some point the tolerant must be willing to defend tolerance against intolerance. So below is an example of tolerant people resisting intolerance in the form of proslytizing. What is especially interesting is that Buddhist proponents of anti-Muslim discourse often assert that Myanmar is under threat from Muslims precisely because Buddhism is, they say, a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion. In arguing that Rohingya are illegal immigrants who promote an exclusivist and proselytising religion that is bent on geographical and cultural conquest through conversion and marriage, some Buddhist leaders in Myanmar thus exploit the very same presumption of uniform tolerance and peacefulness that makes many westerners uniquely surprised by Buddhist violence. https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/why-are-we-surprised-when-buddhists-are-violent-1.2184812 The meaning of the word tolerance mean to allow or bear...it has its limits One can not be totally tolerant without limits....then intolerance will win - at some point the tolerant must be willing to defend tolerance against intolerance. I apologize but.....apparently in all of this you wrote I missed THE EXAMPLE that I asked for of a "tolerant" person who is violent.
frankster Posted May 10 Report Posted May 10 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I apologize but.....apparently in all of this you wrote I missed THE EXAMPLE that I asked for of a "tolerant" person who is violent. I do not think you did..... The buddhist above that i quoted and linked were initially tolerant....but then became violent - after being push too far. Tolerance has its limits beyond which it will not abide/remain.
Pioneer1 Posted May 11 Author Report Posted May 11 franster I said malicious DOES NOT necessarily mean violent. In response you said, It always does.... I said you were wrong. In response you said, provide your evidence Ok...... Quote Merriam-Webster MALICIOUS Definition & Meaning May 2, 2025 — The meaning of MALICIOUS is having or showing a desire to cause harm to someone : given to, marked by, or arising from malice. This definition proves you wrong 2 ways: 1. It says that being malicious having or showing a desire to cause HARM but as we've argued before, harm doesn't necessarily mean violence. But even if you believe it does..... 2. Malicious is having or showing the DESIRE to cause harm, not necessarily actually CAUSING it. So even if you believe harm = violence, being malicious is only the DESIRE to do so not the act itself. Which proves YOU wrong about maliciousness "always" meaning violent So you posted something that does not back your claim... Why you try to use our ancestors to support your lies??? 1. I haven't lied and you haven't proven it. 2. I was making a point by asking since you wanted to twist MY words to support your claims, why didn't you twist HIS to do the same? You have....malicious and attacking is enough No I haven't and it's not enough. You're lying and making up positions to attribute to me to support your failed arguments. Quite FRANKLY....frankster....I thought this would be a bit beneath you. Malicious is violent.. As I've shown and proven already, not necessarily. The buddhist above that i quoted and linked were initially tolerant....but then became violent - after being push too far. They WERE tolerant but BECAME violent. Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. They will be one or the other. They may be tolerant at ONE point in time but once they became violent they were no longer tolerant. It's the same with nations. A nation that was ONCE tolerant can BECOME violent, which at that point they will no longer be tolerant.
Delano Posted May 11 Report Posted May 11 Malicious can be potential or actual. Violence is actual. Violence can be physical or emotional. Perhaps intellectual and spiritual however I think there may be differences too subtle to be compartmentalized 1
frankster Posted May 11 Report Posted May 11 45 minutes ago, Delano said: Malicious can be potential or actual. Violence is actual. Violence can be physical or emotional. Perhaps intellectual and spiritual however I think there may be differences too subtle to be compartmentalized True... Malicious is always....Harmful If it is a Malicious thought....it is always harmful - often first to the Thinker 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: franster I said malicious DOES NOT necessarily mean violent. In response you said, It always does.... And I stand by that...Either intended to do harm or having caused harm When it is a desire wish or wanting - Malice aforethought is intending....... When it is an action already done......Malicious wounding 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I said you were wrong. In response you said, provide your evidence Ok...... This definition proves you wrong 2 ways: 1. It says that being malicious having or showing a desire to cause HARM but as we've argued before, harm doesn't necessarily mean violence. But even if you believe it does..... 2. Malicious is having or showing the DESIRE to cause harm, not necessarily actually CAUSING it. So even if you believe harm = violence, being malicious is only the DESIRE to do so not the act itself. Which proves YOU wrong about maliciousness "always" meaning violent intended to harm or upset other people: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/malicious 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: So you posted something that does not back your claim... Why you try to use our ancestors to support your lies??? 1. I haven't lied and you haven't proven it. There was no mention of "Blacks/Africans being more violent " than anyone. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: 2. I was making a point by asking since you wanted to twist MY words to support your claims, why didn't you twist HIS to do the same? I do not twist words 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You have....malicious and attacking is enough No I haven't and it's not enough. You're lying and making up positions to attribute to me to support your failed arguments. Quite FRANKLY....frankster....I thought this would be a bit beneath you. You show your own guilt by your opening statement....."no I haven't" and it's not enough - Which is it? You haven't or its not enough? @Pioneer1 @Pioneer1 To be clear, when I speak of Black folks being tribal, I mean "tribal" as in grouping up for malicious purposes simply to oppose another Black person. Whether it's in a nation, a school, or on the job. See other Black people and just form gangs and cliques so people can have your "back" as you go out attackanother brother or sister. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Malicious is violent.. As I've shown and proven already, not necessarily. Not necessarily ????? but malicious is most often is violent.... Show me a Malicious Action that isn't violent? 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The buddhist above that i quoted and linked were initially tolerant....but then became violent - after being push too far. They WERE tolerant but BECAME violent. Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. They will be one or the other. Your dishonesty knows no bounds Here is a quote of your query that I was answering @Pioneer1 Ok, so can you please give me an example of someone who was tolerant but violent? There was no mention of at the "same time" 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: They may be tolerant at ONE point in time but once they became violent they were no longer tolerant. Yes.... Tolerance has Limits....beyond which it will not go. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: It's the same with nations. A nation that was ONCE tolerant can BECOME violent, which at that point they will no longer be tolerant. If the Nation have Laws that you Violate....Then they will penalize you The Nation is intolerant to all Law breakers......but Very tolerant to the Law Abiding Thus is the intention of Laws
Pioneer1 Posted May 12 Author Report Posted May 12 frankster If it is a Malicious thought....it is always harmful - often first to the Thinker If it's harmful, what damage does it cause to the thinker? And I stand by that... Well, you can STAND BY a garbage can. Doesn't mean what you're "standing by" has much value to it. Either intended to do harm or having caused harm No, you said ALWAYS does. Meaning ALWAYS violent. And I just showed you it doesn't mean that. You better hurry up and find something else to lean against, lol. I do not twist words Maybe the WORDS aren't twisted....maybe YOU are. You show your own guilt by your opening statement....."no I haven't" and it's not enough - Which is it? You said: You have... "You have" means you accused me of claiming Africans are more violent, in which I replied NO I haven't. You also said: malicious and attacking is enough ...... implyng that it was enough to accuse me of claiming Africans are more violent. And I said NO...it's not enough because I didn't make that statement and again you're setting up strawmen arguments and pinning those assertions and accusations ON me in order to have a target to argue against since your initial ones failed. but malicious is most often is violent.... Show me a Malicious Action that isn't violent? You just said MOST OFTEN, which implies....like I just said...not ALWAYS. Since you believe that malicious is MOST OFTEN (implying not always 100% of the time) violent, then YOU should be able to think of one yourself....lol. Your dishonesty knows no bounds Probably because it doesn't exist. Here is a quote of your query that I was answering Ok, so can you please give me an example of someone who was tolerant but violent? There was no mention of at the "same time" The word "but" in that question clearly implies "same time". Among other things, the word "but" implies 2 simultaneous concepts at the same time. -I'm at home BUT I'm busy....doesn't mean I'm at home but later on I'm busy. I'm at home AND I'm busy at the same time. -I'm driving but I'm eating. It doesn't mean I'm driving THEN I pull over to eat, but doing both at the same time. "Then" would imply 2 separate times, but not "but". Tolerance has Limits....beyond which it will not go. ....at which point violence often takes over. Which again proves my point that a person can't be tolerant AND violent at the same time. *The only exception to this is if that violence is CONSENTUAL for example some sort of "sexual" violence or violence in entertainment. In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved. You couldn't support your initial claims about Africa being tolerant where different groups get along together amicably, so now you're attempting to CHANGE your argument to a comparison of "how tolerant" and "how violent" Africa is compared to other places and then paint yourself as some sort of "defender" of the African people against unwarranted criticism. I see you and what you're TRYING to do.
frankster Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster If it is a Malicious thought....it is always harmful - often first to the Thinker If it's harmful, what damage does it cause to the thinker? 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: And I stand by that... Well, you can STAND BY a garbage can. Doesn't mean what you're "standing by" has much value to it. It does to me 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Either intended to do harm or having caused harm No, you said ALWAYS does. Meaning ALWAYS violent. And I just showed you it doesn't mean that. You better hurry up and find something else to lean against, lol. Here is my first given definition of malicious on may 3 Do not leave out "malicious"....doing or intending to cause harm - injury To do or cause harm is violence Now I also said " On 5/4/2025 at 6:43 PM, Pioneer1 said: Malicious means to have cause harm or to intent to cause harm.. I repeat, malicious DOES NOT necessarily mean violent. It always does...." If maliciousness is always harmful then it must also always be violent 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I do not twist words Maybe the WORDS aren't twisted....maybe YOU are. Or maybe you are trying to squirm twist and turn out of a situation yo find your self in 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You show your own guilt by your opening statement....."no I haven't" and it's not enough - Which is it? You said: You have... "You have" means you accused me of claiming Africans are more violent, in which I replied NO I haven't. You also said: malicious and attacking is enough ...... implyng that it was enough to accuse me of claiming Africans are more violent. And I said NO...it's not enough because I didn't make that statement and again you're setting up strawmen arguments and pinning those assertions and accusations ON me in order to have a target to argue against since your initial ones failed. I I quote/////..... On 4/5/2025 at 7:56 AM, Pioneer1 said: 2. In multi-racial societies where White people have to live with other groups: While Black people often form tribes and attack OTHER Black people, White people often form tribes for the purpose of attacking other people of color and NOT their own. Do you deny saying the above quote... 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: but malicious is most often is violent.... Show me a Malicious Action that isn't violent? You just said MOST OFTEN, which implies....like I just said...not ALWAYS. Since you believe that malicious is MOST OFTEN (implying not always 100% of the time) violent, then YOU should be able to think of one yourself....lol. My very first definition implied that.... 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Your dishonesty knows no bounds Probably because it doesn't exist. You saying your opinions are based in or on facts.....is one that you have yet to provide evidence for 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Here is a quote of your query that I was answering Ok, so can you please give me an example of someone who was tolerant but violent? There was no mention of at the "same time" The word "but" in that question clearly implies "same time". Among other things, the word "but" implies 2 simultaneous concepts at the same time. No it clearly means became violent to me. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I'm at home BUT I'm busy....doesn't mean I'm at home but later on I'm busy. I'm at home AND I'm busy at the same time. -I'm driving but I'm eating. It doesn't mean I'm driving THEN I pull over to eat, but doing both at the same time. "Then" would imply 2 separate times, but not "but". I am at home but I am going to be busy... That is how I read it 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Tolerance has Limits....beyond which it will not go. ....at which point violence often takes over. Which again proves my point that a person can't be tolerant AND violent at the same time. When you break whatever limits was in place... 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: *The only exception to this is if that violence is CONSENTUAL for example some sort of "sexual" violence or violence in entertainment. In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved. Thanks 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You couldn't support your initial claims about Africa being tolerant where different groups get along together amicably, so now you're attempting to CHANGE your argument to a comparison of "how tolerant" and "how violent" Africa is compared to other places and then paint yourself as some sort of "defender" of the African people against unwarranted criticism. I see you and what you're TRYING to do. And I see you for trying to make out Africans as being more Violent.
Pioneer1 Posted May 12 Author Report Posted May 12 frankster If maliciousness is always harmful then it must also always be violent But you're wrong because according to the definition, it's often times NEITHER. Maliciousness is often a DESIRE or INTENT, not an action. A DESIRE or INTENT isn't violent. Or maybe you are trying to squirm twist and turn out of a situation yo find your self in Why should I? I love being in the DRIVER'S SEAT as I run circles around you, lol. Do you deny saying the above quote... Ofcourse not. Do you deny the TRUTH of that quote? What area did YOU grow up in where Black people didn't form groups to attack eachother be it verbally, physically, or even for entertainment? No it clearly means became violent to me. Well your understanding is erroneous. "but" implies AT THE SAME TIME. Most people understand this. I am at home but I am going to be busy... That is how I read it That's how you READ it because that's how you JUST WROTE it. You CHANGED the premises when you ADDED "I am going to be"...which is future tense. Ofcourse the times are difference because "I am home" speaks of the present while "I am going to be busy" speaks of what will happen LATER ON in the future. That's not the original sentence; you altered it. I AM home but I AM busy. ....not later on sometime after dinner, but NOW. And I see you for trying to make out Africans as being more Violent. More violent than who?
frankster Posted May 13 Report Posted May 13 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster If maliciousness is always harmful then it must also always be violent But you're wrong because according to the definition, it's often times NEITHER. Maliciousness is often a DESIRE or INTENT, not an action. A DESIRE or INTENT isn't violent. Malicious is always harmful and as such it is also violent... Violence is not always physical... 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Or maybe you are trying to squirm twist and turn out of a situation yo find your self in Why should I? I love being in the DRIVER'S SEAT as I run circles around you, lol. Thanks for the admission.....running in circles is what you are good at 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Do you deny saying the above quote... Ofcourse not. Do you deny the TRUTH of that quote? What area did YOU grow up in where Black people didn't form groups to attack eachother be it verbally, physically, or even for entertainment? Never said anything like that.... 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No it clearly means became violent to me. Well your understanding is erroneous. "but" implies AT THE SAME TIME. Most people understand this. But in that statement does not means imply to me... But does not implies....it contrast 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I am at home but I am going to be busy... That is how I read it That's how you READ it because that's how you JUST WROTE it. You CHANGED the premises when you ADDED "I am going to be"...which is future tense. which is how I read it and answered accordingly 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Ofcourse the times are difference because "I am home" speaks of the present while "I am going to be busy" speaks of what will happen LATER ON in the future. That's not the original sentence; you altered it. I AM home but I AM busy. ....not later on sometime after dinner, but NOW. I gave you my answer which is and was direct and to the point. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: And I see you for trying to make out Africans as being more Violent. More violent than who? Than most of the rest of the world..
Pioneer1 Posted May 13 Author Report Posted May 13 frankster Malicious is always harmful and as such it is also violent... I believe I asked you before, what "harm" does a MALICIOUS THOUGHT do? Thanks for the admission.....running in circles is what you are good at If you see me running IN CIRCLES, it's just me trying to follow your CIRCULAR logic...lol. But does not implies....it contrast It does BOTH. Implying and contrasting don't contradict eachother. They're just separate concepts. Again, "but" usually implies "at same time" unless a time differentiation is made. which is how I read it and answered accordingly How can you read something that didn't exist? "I'm going to be" was NOT in the sentence I gave. The sentence was plain and clear: I'm home but I'm busy The only time "I'm going to be" was introduced was when YOU introduced it. I gave you my answer which is and was direct and to the point. Yeah...but the problem is....NO QUESTION WAS ASKED OF YOU. I merely gave you an example of how "but" is used to imply 2 actions occurring simultaneously. Than most of the rest of the world.. Ok. Then you're deluded. I never said that nor did I even allude to it. It's a strawman argument that YOU'VE constructed to fight with in order to TRY and redeem yourself, lol.
frankster Posted May 14 Report Posted May 14 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Malicious is always harmful and as such it is also violent... I believe I asked you before, what "harm" does a MALICIOUS THOUGHT do? These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers, leading to compulsions that are intended to reduce the fear of causing harm. https://adaa.org/learn-from-us/from-the-experts/blog-posts/consumer/harm-ocd-vs-being-dangerous 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Thanks for the admission.....running in circles is what you are good at If you see me running IN CIRCLES, it's just me trying to follow your CIRCULAR logic...lol. I do not run in circles....so you are then you chasing your own ass 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: But does not implies....it contrast It does BOTH. Implying and contrasting don't contradict eachother. They're just separate concepts. Again, "but" usually implies "at same time" unless a time differentiation is made. Well that is the meaning I got from your use of the word "but" in that context. 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: which is how I read it and answered accordingly How can you read something that didn't exist? "I'm going to be" was NOT in the sentence I gave. Neither was "at the same time" 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The sentence was plain and clear: I'm home but I'm busy The only time "I'm going to be" was introduced was when YOU introduced it. You said "Tolerant but violent"....At no time did I read that as at the same time if that is what you meant then you should have stated it so 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I gave you my answer which is and was direct and to the point. Yeah...but the problem is....NO QUESTION WAS ASKED OF YOU. I merely gave you an example of how "but" is used to imply 2 actions occurring simultaneously. To me "but" does not necessarilly denote concurrence 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Than most of the rest of the world.. Ok. Then you're deluded. I never said that nor did I even allude to it. It's a strawman argument that YOU'VE constructed to fight with in order to TRY and redeem yourself, lol. Members 11.2k LocationMichigan Author Posted April 3 ProfD IMO, humans are tribal by nature. In complex societies, people belong to more than one tribe. "Ofcourse all population groups share some tribalist tendencies, however some seem to exhibit more than others. To be clear, when I speak of Black folks being tribal, I mean "tribal" as in grouping up for malicious purposes simply to oppose another Black person. Whether it's in a nation, a school, or on the job. See other Black people and just form gangs and cliques so people can have your "back" as you go out attack another brother or sister." That straw man you see is you own ass
Pioneer1 Posted May 16 Author Report Posted May 16 frankster These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers, leading to compulsions that are intended to reduce the fear of causing harm. And from that very same article we read: "It is important to note that Harm OCD does not indicate a risk of carrying out actual physical harm. While the thoughts associated with Harm OCD can be disturbing and distressing, they usually remain within the realm of ego-dystonic thoughts -- meaning they are contrary to one's own values, beliefs, and sense of self. These intrusive thoughts should not be interpreted as true reflections of someone's internal state or intentions. It is up to qualified mental health professionals to assess potential risks for actual physical harm or suicidal ideation in order to provide appropriate intervention and care. " https://adaa.org/learn-from-us/from-the-experts/blog-posts/consumer/harm-ocd-vs-being-dangerous Malicious thoughts are thoughts with the INTENT and;or DESIRE to do harm. This article actually speaks of the opposite! People who DON'T intend to or have the desire to do harm and see these thoughts as unwelcomed and unwanted; intrusive. I do not run in circles Not after smoking that sticky green, you don't...lol. It's hard to raise up off the COUCH after a hit or two of that. Well that is the meaning I got from your use of the word "but" in that context. Which is why I said you were DELUDED earlier. Actually, it's a form of hallucination....to see things that aren't there. You apparently "saw" words in the text that I didn't type. That's bud you be smoking ain't 'NUN to play with....lol. You said "Tolerant but violent"....At no time did I read that as at the same time Because it's a given, for most people.
frankster Posted May 16 Report Posted May 16 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers, leading to compulsions that are intended to reduce the fear of causing harm. And from that very same article we read: "It is important to note that Harm OCD does not indicate a risk of carrying out actual physical harm. While the thoughts associated with Harm OCD can be disturbing and distressing, they usually remain within the realm of ego-dystonic thoughts -- meaning they are contrary to one's own values, beliefs, and sense of self. These intrusive thoughts should not be interpreted as true reflections of someone's internal state or intentions. It is up to qualified mental health professionals to assess potential risks for actual physical harm or suicidal ideation in order to provide appropriate intervention and care. " https://adaa.org/learn-from-us/from-the-experts/blog-posts/consumer/harm-ocd-vs-being-dangerous Malicious thoughts are thoughts with the INTENT and;or DESIRE to do harm. This article actually speaks of the opposite! People who DON'T intend to or have the desire to do harm and see these thoughts as unwelcomed and unwanted; intrusive. I have already address the fact there is malicious actions which physically violent..... This is the harm it impose on the individual who thinks malicious thoughts... So to that extent....malicious thoughts are always harmful 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I do not run in circles Not after smoking that sticky green, you don't...lol. It's hard to raise up off the COUCH after a hit or two of that. Cant have enough of the 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Well that is the meaning I got from your use of the word "but" in that context. Which is why I said you were DELUDED earlier. Actually, it's a form of hallucination....to see things that aren't there. You apparently "saw" words in the text that I didn't type. That's bud you be smoking ain't 'NUN to play with....lol. Now you just trying to run away from the discussion....with all this ad hominem. 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: You said "Tolerant but violent"....At no time did I read that as at the same time Because it's a given, for most people. no its not...a given This line of argument is without merit....I will no longer address this. So please restate your query properly.
Pioneer1 Posted May 17 Author Report Posted May 17 frankster I have already address the fact there is malicious actions which physically violent..... This is the harm it impose on the individual who thinks malicious thoughts... It's the ACTION that caused the violence, not the thoughts. Again, what HARM does malicious THOUGHTS THEMSELVES do? So to that extent....malicious thoughts are always harmful ALWAYS harmful???? Here you go again with this extremism....lol. How do you know that malicious ANYTHING is "always" harmful? Now you just trying to run away from the discussion....with all this ad hominem. What I said was a fact. You ADDED words to my example that weren't originally there. no its not...a given This line of argument is without merit....I will no longer address this. You can't...lol. It's almost common sense that when somebody says: I'm home but I'm busy ...the mean concurrently UNLESS clearly stated otherwise. A person or people can't be violent AND tolerant at the same time unless that violence is sanctioned.
frankster Posted May 17 Report Posted May 17 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster I have already address the fact there is malicious actions which physically violent..... This is the harm it impose on the individual who thinks malicious thoughts... It's the ACTION that caused the violence, not the thoughts. Again, what HARM does malicious THOUGHTS THEMSELVES do? These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers, leading to compulsions that are intended to reduce the fear of causing harm. https://adaa.org/learn-from-us/from-the-experts/blog-posts/consumer/harm-ocd-vs-being-dangerous 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: So to that extent....malicious thoughts are always harmful ALWAYS harmful???? Here you go again with this extremism....lol. How do you know that malicious ANYTHING is "always" harmful? Both Buddha and Jesus concurs with the idea that harmful thoughts are dangerous and harmful to the thinker 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: Now you just trying to run away from the discussion....with all this ad hominem. What I said was a fact. You ADDED words to my example that weren't originally there. No....I told you how I interpreted it . Then you said it meant "same time"....that was not in your initial query so please rephrase your question correctly.... 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: no its not...a given This line of argument is without merit....I will no longer address this. You can't...lol. It's almost common sense that when somebody says: I'm home but I'm busy ...the mean concurrently UNLESS clearly stated otherwise. I have already dealt with this issue.. 1 hour ago, Pioneer1 said: A person or people can't be violent AND tolerant at the same time unless that violence is sanctioned. There you go answering your own question... What do you mean by "sanctioned" in this instant/example? How are the following two statements of yours not contradictory? "They WERE tolerant but BECAME violent. Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. They will be one or the other." and "A person or people can't be violent AND tolerant at the same time unless that violence is sanctioned."
Pioneer1 Posted May 17 Author Report Posted May 17 frankster These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers, leading to compulsions that are intended to reduce the fear of causing harm. These aren't MALICIOUS thoughts. Find me the word "malicious" in that article you reference from! They are talking about INTRUSIVELY violent thoughts that are unwelcomed and not desired. Not MALICIOUSLY violent thoughts that are intended to be had and desired. Both Buddha and Jesus concurs with the idea that harmful thoughts are dangerous and harmful to the thinker Well if you know them personally then invite them into this discussion so we can read their positions on this matter DIRECTLY rather than a bunch of historical hearsay that may or may not be the actual truth. No....I told you how I interpreted it . And again, I told YOU that you are delusional because you're seeing things that aren't there and it's leading you to the wrong conclusions. I have already dealt with this issue.. If you actually dealt with it, it wouldn't STILL be an issue...lol. There you go answering your own question... Ofcourse....YOU couldn't answer it. I had to answer it FOR you...lol. What do you mean by "sanctioned" in this instant/example? Permitted by all parties involved, including the victims. In other words.... An example of a "sanctioned" type of violence would be sports like boxing or martial arts where everyone involved from the government to the fighters themselves acknowledge and accept the violence that comes with sport. A society can allow that and still be tolerant since all parties agree to it. As opposed to victims of violent crime, or people being convicted of crimes and being violently punished by the government. A society that allows that is NOT tolerant because the victims didn't agree to be violated. The violence was generally forced on them. Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. A person or people can't be violent AND tolerant at the same time unless that violence is sanctioned." How are the following two statements of yours not contradictory? Because the first statement talks about a PERSON. A PERSON can't be both at the same time. However the second statement talks about a person OR people (plural). The "unless it's sanctioned" part refers to PEOPLE (plural), not a person because a person can't sanction themselves...lol.
frankster Posted May 18 Report Posted May 18 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers, leading to compulsions that are intended to reduce the fear of causing harm. These aren't MALICIOUS thoughts. Find me the word "malicious" in that article you reference from! I do not have to find the word malicious.....the word "harm" is sufficient. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: They are talking about INTRUSIVELY violent thoughts that are unwelcomed and not desired. Not MALICIOUSLY violent thoughts that are intended to be had and desired. Whether intrusive or not....it is thoughts having to do with causing harm 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Both Buddha and Jesus concurs with the idea that harmful thoughts are dangerous and harmful to the thinker Well if you know them personally then invite them into this discussion so we can read their positions on this matter DIRECTLY rather than a bunch of historical hearsay that may or may not be the actual truth. I do not know them personally but their writings have been recorded. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No....I told you how I interpreted it . And again, I told YOU that you are delusional because you're seeing things that aren't there and it's leading you to the wrong conclusions. Yet you will not rephrase your question....so it is clear you do not want an answer. You just want to create foster and maintain ambiguity. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I have already dealt with this issue.. If you actually dealt with it, it wouldn't STILL be an issue...lol. it is now all yours as you still have not rephrase you question....that have led to a misunderstanding. Your refusal is telling that you do not want an answer but instead want to create and maintain a misunderstanding. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: There you go answering your own question... Ofcourse....YOU couldn't answer it. I had to answer it FOR you...lol. I did answer how I understood it Your answer is contradictory to your statement. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What do you mean by "sanctioned" in this instant/example? Permitted by all parties involved, including the victims. In other words.... An example of a "sanctioned" type of violence would be sports like boxing or martial arts where everyone involved from the government to the fighters themselves acknowledge and accept the violence that comes with sport. A society can allow that and still be tolerant since all parties agree to it. I concur 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: As opposed to victims of violent crime, or people being convicted of crimes and being violently punished by the government. A society that allows that is NOT tolerant because the victims didn't agree to be violated. The violence was generally forced on them. If a criminal knowing violates the law....then he tacitly agrees to the punish if caught. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. A person or people can't be violent AND tolerant at the same time unless that violence is sanctioned." How are the following two statements of yours not contradictory? Because the first statement talks about a PERSON. A PERSON can't be both at the same time. However the second statement talks about a person OR people (plural). The "unless it's sanctioned" part refers to PEOPLE (plural), not a person because a person can't sanction themselves...lol. To be accurate your statement said "a person or people" What about a person in power or having authority can they sanctioned? The Buddhist example I gave then....based on the argument you have given above then is accurate and true The Buddhists were a people
Pioneer1 Posted May 18 Author Report Posted May 18 frankster You said malicious thoughts are "always" harmful, I'm still waiting on an answer as to how do you know this to be the case? I do not know them personally but their writings have been recorded. How do you know those recordings are accurate? They dwelt on this planet THOUSANDS of years ago and many people have came in their name FALSELY claiming to represent them and their teachings. Yet you will not rephrase your question....so it is clear you do not want an answer. In this instance, I wasn't asking a question but giving an example. Your answer is contradictory to your statement. How so? If a criminal knowing violates the law....then he tacitly agrees to the punish if caught. That's not necessarily true. Even if they are INDIFFERENT to the punishment, it doesn't mean they agree to it or welcomes it. I've known people who weren't afraid of going to jail if they got caught, but they certainly didn't want to. What about a person in power or having authority can they sanctioned? In this case....."sanctioned violence" means the person issuing AND receiving the violence as well as the community their acting in ALL pretty much agree to it and there is no malice involved. That's why I mentioned SPORTS as an example. If there is any malice involved or if the violence is unwanted by either side or by the society in general....that community is no longer tolerant. The Buddhist example I gave then....based on the argument you have given above then is accurate and true The Buddhists were a people You posted: Quote What is especially interesting is that Buddhist proponents of anti-Muslim discourse often assert that Myanmar is under threat from Muslims precisely because Buddhism is, they say, a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion. In arguing that Rohingya are illegal immigrants who promote an exclusivist and proselytising religion that is bent on geographical and cultural conquest through conversion and marriage, some Buddhist leaders in Myanmar thus exploit the very same presumption of uniform tolerance and peacefulness that makes many westerners uniquely surprised by Buddhist violence. Ok, before we go further with this....help me out and show me where in this excerpt where it says these Buddhists actually committed acts of violence. It speaks on the IDEA of Buddhist violence at the end of it, but I didn't read any mention of them being violent themselves.
frankster Posted May 18 Report Posted May 18 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster You said malicious thoughts are "always" harmful, I'm still waiting on an answer as to how do you know this to be the case? Because it says Fortunately, for most people, occasional bad thoughts are nothing but a momentary irritation.......These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers,........While the thoughts associated with Harm OCD can be disturbing and distressing, they usually remain within the realm of ego-dystonic thoughts https://adaa.org/learn-from-us/from-the-experts/blog-posts/consumer/harm-ocd-vs-being-dangerous 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I do not know them personally but their writings have been recorded. How do you know those recordings are accurate? They dwelt on this planet THOUSANDS of years ago and many people have came in their name FALSELY claiming to represent them and their teachings. Whether or not it is their own personal belief that they taught....is not the point. The point is....... that body of knowledge ascribe to them is now being accept as factual and true. 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yet you will not rephrase your question....so it is clear you do not want an answer. In this instance, I wasn't asking a question but giving an example. cool 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Your answer is contradictory to your statement. How so? a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. and unless that violence is sanctioned." Your first statement says a person can't be both at the same time while your second statements introduces a special circumstance in which the first statement does not apply so in effect....according to your own statements there is an exception....in sports. In which a person can be both tolerant and violent at the same time - thereby disproving your own assertions. Which means you have contradicted yourself 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If a criminal knowing violates the law....then he tacitly agrees to the punish if caught. That's not necessarily true. Even if they are INDIFFERENT to the punishment, it doesn't mean they agree to it or welcomes it. I've known people who weren't afraid of going to jail if they got caught, but they certainly didn't want to. If they truly did not want to go to jail....they would not have done the crime. Whatever it is that drove them to commit the crime was more pressing...At that point s/he was will to risk the penalty 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What about a person in power or having authority can they sanctioned? In this case....."sanctioned violence" means the person issuing AND receiving the violence as well as the community their acting in ALL pretty much agree to it and there is no malice involved. That's why I mentioned SPORTS as an example. So would a judge qualify? 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If there is any malice involved or if the violence is unwanted by either side or by the society in general....that community is no longer tolerant. We then disagree 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The Buddhist example I gave then....based on the argument you have given above then is accurate and true The Buddhists were a people You posted: Ok, before we go further with this....help me out and show me where in this excerpt where it says these Buddhists actually committed acts of violence. It speaks on the IDEA of Buddhist violence at the end of it, but I didn't read any mention of them being violent themselves. What is especially interesting is that Buddhist proponents of anti-Muslim discourse often assert that Myanmar is under threat from Muslims precisely because Buddhism is, they say, a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion. In arguing that Rohingya are illegal immigrants who promote an exclusivist and proselytising religion that is bent on geographical and cultural conquest through conversion and marriage, some Buddhist leaders in Myanmar thus exploit the very same presumption of uniform tolerance and peacefulness that makes many westerners uniquely surprised by Buddhist violence. https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/why-are-we-surprised-when-buddhists-are-violent-1.2184812
Pioneer1 Posted May 18 Author Report Posted May 18 frankster Because it says Fortunately, for most people, occasional bad thoughts are nothing but a momentary irritation.......These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers,........While the thoughts associated with Harm OCD can be disturbing and distressing, they usually remain within the realm of ego-dystonic thoughts I understand what "it" says. "It" is an article, a non-person. I'm asking YOU (frankster) how do YOU know that malicious thoughts are "always" harmful? That's a broad and very general statement. How did YOU get into a position to know whether or not every malicious thought was harmful...lol. Besides.... I don't see the word "always" in that text. I see the words "can cause" in it and "can be" speaking on potential but nothing in it says they are "always" harmful. Whether or not it is their own personal belief that they taught....is not the point. I understand. But the ACCURACY of their teachings IS. The point is....... that body of knowledge ascribe to them is now being accept as factual and true. I understand that too, but it doesn't mean that it IS actual and true. Plenty of people believe in words ATTRIBUTED to Jesus and Buddha that may indeed be falsified. Do you not agree? That's why it would be important for THEM to clarify their words instead of reading what others have to say OF them. a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. and unless that violence is sanctioned." Your first statement says a person can't be both at the same time while your second statements introduces a special circumstance in which the first statement does not apply so in effect....according to your own statements there is an exception....in sports. In which a person can be both tolerant and violent at the same time - thereby disproving your own assertions. Which means you have contradicted yourself It's a contradiction if I posted it with much of my actual words GONE like YOU just did. Man....you're something else. Adding words that WEREN'T in my original statement. And TAKING AWAY words that were...lol. No wonder you have such an affinity towards the Bible. No a PERSON can't be both violent and tolerant at the same time but a PEOPLE (plural) can. If they truly did not want to go to jail....they would not have done the crime. Again, not necessarily. They may have been indifferent to it. Whatever it is that drove them to commit the crime was more pressing...At that point s/he was will to risk the penalty True. Which is DIFFERENT than the first reason you suggested for them committing the crime. In your first reasoning, you suggest that they committed the crime because they wanted to go to jail...or else they wouldn't have committed it. In your second reasoning, you...more correctly...stated that whatever drove them to commit the crime was more pressing than the penalty for it. This has been the observation when it comes to most criminals. They don't WANT the penalty, but the motivation for the crime was more pressing. So would a judge qualify? I'm not thinking of a scenario where ONE PERSON could qualify for "sanctioned" violence. A judge can "make it legal" for himself to inflict violence on another but the person they're inflicting it on would still NOT agree to it and the community in which this takes place may or may not agree to it also. ALL parties involved with the violence (including the community it's committed in) would have to qualify....not just one. This is what would maintain their "tolerance" as a community. If people are victims of violence against THEIR will...for whatever reason...then that's no longer a TOLERANT community because "intolerable" things are happening in it. We then disagree Come on man, what's new....lol. What is especially interesting is that Buddhist proponents of anti-Muslim discourse often assert that Myanmar is under threat from Muslims precisely because Buddhism is, they say, a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion. In arguing that Rohingya are illegal immigrants who promote an exclusivist and proselytising religion that is bent on geographical and cultural conquest through conversion and marriage, some Buddhist leaders in Myanmar thus exploit the very same presumption of uniform tolerance and peacefulness that makes many westerners uniquely surprised by Buddhist violence. Yes I understand that part and mentioned it in my question. Again, WHAT VIOLENT ACT did these Buddhists commit? Point out exactly what they were doing that was violent, so that we can continue.
frankster Posted May 19 Report Posted May 19 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Because it says Fortunately, for most people, occasional bad thoughts are nothing but a momentary irritation.......These types of thoughts, images and urges are typically referred to as Harm OCD and they can cause significant distress and anxiety in sufferers,........While the thoughts associated with Harm OCD can be disturbing and distressing, they usually remain within the realm of ego-dystonic thoughts I understand what "it" says. "It" is an article, a non-person. I'm asking YOU (frankster) how do YOU know that malicious thoughts are "always" harmful? That's a broad and very general statement. How did YOU get into a position to know whether or not every malicious thought was harmful...lol. The Answer is because the very thought is Harmful as the article testifies to... Reading and watching various research and experimentation....is how I came to that knowledge. 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Besides.... I don't see the word "always" in that text. I see the words "can cause" in it and "can be" speaking on potential but nothing in it says they are "always" harmful. At the beginning of the quoted text it says '"Fortunately, for most people, occasional bad thoughts are nothing but a momentary irritation" 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Whether or not it is their own personal belief that they taught....is not the point. I understand. But the ACCURACY of their teachings IS. Exactly....current knowledge backs up the Ancient Teachings 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The point is....... that body of knowledge ascribe to them is now being accept as factual and true. I understand that too, but it doesn't mean that it IS actual and true. Plenty of people believe in words ATTRIBUTED to Jesus and Buddha that may indeed be falsified. Do you not agree? Yes...false attributions can occur 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: That's why it would be important for THEM to clarify their words instead of reading what others have to say OF them. It would be nice.....but they in their wisdom they saw it fit to do it the way they did it.... Their words having survive this long....shows the wisdom of their method. 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. and unless that violence is sanctioned." Your first statement says a person can't be both at the same time while your second statements introduces a special circumstance in which the first statement does not apply so in effect....according to your own statements there is an exception....in sports. In which a person can be both tolerant and violent at the same time - thereby disproving your own assertions. Which means you have contradicted yourself It's a contradiction if I posted it with much of my actual words GONE like YOU just did. Man....you're something else. I am address only that which is contradictory.... 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Adding words that WEREN'T in my original statement. And TAKING AWAY words that were...lol. I have already agree with your exception....just pointing out that the exception is indeed contradictory to your initial statements - hence why it is a exception 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No wonder you have such an affinity towards the Bible. One must be able to not only read the words....but to understand what is not being said and what's being implied. 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: No a PERSON can't be both violent and tolerant at the same time but a PEOPLE (plural) can. I did give the Buddhist as an example....thanks 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If they truly did not want to go to jail....they would not have done the crime. Again, not necessarily. They may have been indifferent to it. it does not matter. 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Whatever it is that drove them to commit the crime was more pressing...At that point s/he was will to risk the penalty True. Which is DIFFERENT than the first reason you suggested for them committing the crime. In your first reasoning, you suggest that they committed the crime because they wanted to go to jail...or else they wouldn't have committed it. Please provide quote? 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: In your second reasoning, you...more correctly...stated that whatever drove them to commit the crime was more pressing than the penalty for it. This has been the observation when it comes to most criminals. They don't WANT the penalty, but the motivation for the crime was more pressing. Hence their willingness to risk the penalty....that willingness is tacit approval. 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: So would a judge qualify? I'm not thinking of a scenario where ONE PERSON could qualify for "sanctioned" violence. A judge can "make it legal" for himself to inflict violence on another but the person they're inflicting it on would still NOT agree to it and the community in which this takes place may or may not agree to it also. ALL parties involved with the violence (including the community it's committed in) would have to qualify....not just one. This is what would maintain their "tolerance" as a community. No....I do not agree Then intolerance would rule over tolerance all the time... In the example of the Buddhist... The Muslim were abusing the Buddhist tolerance with their intolerance of buddhist rules 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If people are victims of violence against THEIR will...for whatever reason...then that's no longer a TOLERANT community because "intolerable" things are happening in it. I am not in full agreement. If the community has rules that an individual breaks and is penalized for.....that to me does not make the community intolerable. That make the rule breaker intolerable.....tolerance has limits - it is not the same as pacifism 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: We then disagree Come on man, what's new....lol. keep it moving...life's real 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What is especially interesting is that Buddhist proponents of anti-Muslim discourse often assert that Myanmar is under threat from Muslims precisely because Buddhism is, they say, a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion. In arguing that Rohingya are illegal immigrants who promote an exclusivist and proselytising religion that is bent on geographical and cultural conquest through conversion and marriage, some Buddhist leaders in Myanmar thus exploit the very same presumption of uniform tolerance and peacefulness that makes many westerners uniquely surprised by Buddhist violence. Yes I understand that part and mentioned it in my question. Again, WHAT VIOLENT ACT did these Buddhists commit? Point out exactly what they were doing that was violent, so that we can continue. Today, Myanmar is the center of one of the largest refugee crises in the world. Members of the majority Buddhist Burmese population have forcibly displaced many of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group mainly centered in the southwest of the country. Over the last decade, hundreds of Muslims have been murdered, mosques have been destroyed, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee their homes. By 2013, in neighboring Bangladesh alone around 300,000 Rohingya refugees lived in camps along the border. The violence has been coordinated and serious, and the UN Human Rights Office has stated that Myanmar is likely guilty of “crimes against humanity” or even “ethnic cleansing.” https://rpl.hds.harvard.edu/religion-context/case-studies/violence-peace/conflict-myanmar 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said:
Pioneer1 Posted May 19 Author Report Posted May 19 frankster The Answer is because the very thought is Harmful as the article testifies to... Reading and watching various research and experimentation....is how I came to that knowledge. Always? Ok, so if that very thought itself is harmful...doesn't it harm YOU just talking about it? If you have a discussion with a person who has homicidal thoughts...according to your logic, wouldn't them sharing their thoughts with you harm YOU as well? At the beginning of the quoted text it says '"Fortunately, for most people, occasional bad thoughts are nothing but a momentary irritation" Didn't see the word "always" in there, but.... Exactly....current knowledge backs up the Ancient Teachings Can you name me 3 examples of current knowledge that backs up ancient teachings ATTRIBUTED to Jesus or Buddha? Their words having survive this long....shows the wisdom of their method. That's my point... We don't know that it's THEIR words. I am address only that which is contradictory.... Then you wouldn't be addressing ANYTHING, on my end...lol. .just pointing out that the exception is indeed contradictory to your initial statements You left out "or a people" which is ONE of TWO major components to the concept of being BOTH tolerant and violent at the same time. The other being "sanctioned violence". One must be able to not only read the words....but to understand what is not being said and what's being implied One must not smoke weed before reading the words though or you will be DELUDED and see things into them that the author of those words didn't intend...lol. tolerance has limits Exactly. At which point they are no longer tolerant. Again, unless it's sanctioned....a person or people can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. Members of the majority Buddhist Burmese population have forcibly displaced many of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group mainly centered in the southwest of the country. Over the last decade, hundreds of Muslims have been murdered, mosques have been destroyed, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee their homes Ok, now this wasn't part of the original excerpt that you kept posting. Now this DOES give examples of Buddhist violence. Now we have something to work with.... However, unfortunately for YOU...it's NOT an example of SANCTIONED violence; so it wouldn't qualify as an example of a people being BOTH tolerant and violent. It's MURDER. Murder generally speaking isn't sanctioned violence. Nor is it tolerance. It's violence AGAINST THE WILL of the murdered victim. Murder is a major act of INTOLERANCE both on the part of the victim AND the perpetrator. Again, a society can NOT be tolerant and violent as the same time UNLESS that violence is sanctioned.
frankster Posted May 20 Report Posted May 20 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster The Answer is because the very thought is Harmful as the article testifies to... Reading and watching various research and experimentation....is how I came to that knowledge. Always? Ok, so if that very thought itself is harmful...doesn't it harm YOU just talking about it? If you have a discussion with a person who has homicidal thoughts...according to your logic, wouldn't them sharing their thoughts with you harm YOU as well? It depends... Are you entertaining the thoughts and catching feelings or become emotional did the interaction affect your mood? If not then you are not harming yourself... On the other had if did succumb to feelings emotions or mood as a result then it is harming you 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: At the beginning of the quoted text it says '"Fortunately, for most people, occasional bad thoughts are nothing but a momentary irritation" Didn't see the word "always" in there, but.... It is not there. "Most People" is where I get the "always" if for most people it is "momentary irritation"...that is where the modern science has reach - most people.... But the ancients have gone further....so science is yet to catch up so to speak "Your worst enemy cannot harm you as much as your own thought".....Buddha https://www.yogi.press/home/thinking-and-energy-the-power-of-thoughts Phillippians4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Exactly....current knowledge backs up the Ancient Teachings Can you name me 3 examples of current knowledge that backs up ancient teachings ATTRIBUTED to Jesus or Buddha? I do not understand the question? Is it that you want me to prove that Buddha or Jesus actual taught or said something? If that is you question....I cannot prove such to you. Or Are you asking if Buddha or Jesus is reputed to have taught of the effects of thoughts and their effect on us human beings? which is it? 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Their words having survive this long....shows the wisdom of their method. That's my point... We don't know that it's THEIR words. And as I said before in this case it is not the point....as to whether or not it is their words. Whats true and important is that it is now accepted as factual..... 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I am address only that which is contradictory.... Then you wouldn't be addressing ANYTHING, on my end...lol. Do you deny texting the following On May 11. I quote: "Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time." Now you are saying there is an exception...the exception is contradictory to the above statment. On May 11 you "*The only exception to this is if that violence is CONSENTUAL for example some sort of "sexual" violence or violence in entertainment. In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved." 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: .just pointing out that the exception is indeed contradictory to your initial statements You left out "or a people" which is ONE of TWO major components to the concept of being BOTH tolerant and violent at the same time. The other being "sanctioned violence". In the above quote you also left out "or a people" In any case my example of the buddhist who were a people yet you claimed it as proof that tolerance and violence cannot be at the same time.. 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: One must be able to not only read the words....but to understand what is not being said and what's being implied One must not smoke weed before reading the words though or you will be DELUDED and see things into them that the author of those words didn't intend...lol. No I see deeper and further.....than your befuddled mind can conceive or comprehend 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: tolerance has limits Exactly. At which point they are no longer tolerant. Again, unless it's sanctioned....a person or people can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time. The Tolerant Buddhist used Violence to curb muslim aggression....The Buddhist are tolerant 3 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Members of the majority Buddhist Burmese population have forcibly displaced many of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group mainly centered in the southwest of the country. Over the last decade, hundreds of Muslims have been murdered, mosques have been destroyed, and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee their homes Ok, now this wasn't part of the original excerpt that you kept posting. Now this DOES give examples of Buddhist violence. Now we have something to work with.... However, unfortunately for YOU...it's NOT an example of SANCTIONED violence; so it wouldn't qualify as an example of a people being BOTH tolerant and violent. It's MURDER. Murder generally speaking isn't sanctioned violence. Nor is it tolerance. It's violence AGAINST THE WILL of the murdered victim. Murder is a major act of INTOLERANCE both on the part of the victim AND the perpetrator. Again, a society can NOT be tolerant and violent as the same time UNLESS that violence is sanctioned. It qualified as a people being both tolerant and violent....the action taken was in self defense
Pioneer1 Posted May 20 Author Report Posted May 20 frankster It is not there. "Most People" is where I get the "always" if for most people it is "momentary irritation"...that is where the modern science has reach - most people.... Thank you for essentially admitting that you were wrong and misspoke. Now we can move on. I do not understand the question? Is it that you want me to prove that Buddha or Jesus actual taught or said something? If that is you question....I cannot prove such to you. No, that's not what I'm asking. Because I already know you couldn't. Or Are you asking if Buddha or Jesus is reputed to have taught of the effects of thoughts and their effect on us human beings? It depends. You said: current knowledge backs up the Ancient Teachings Were you talking about current knowledge in GENERAL or were you talking specifically about current knowledge on THOUGHTS? Do you deny texting the following On May 11. I quote: "Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time." Now you are saying there is an exception...the exception is contradictory to the above statment. On May 11 you "*The only exception to this is if that violence is CONSENTUAL for example some sort of "sexual" violence or violence in entertainment. In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved." Sir, do you know the difference between a PERSON and a COMMUNITY? In the above quote you also left out "or a people" frankster.....what is a community made of? Stop playing, man. The Tolerant Buddhist used Violence to curb muslim aggression....The Buddhist are tolerant If they were tolerant, they wouldn't have used UNWANTED (by their victims) violence. Nor would have they resorted to violence. It qualified as a people being both tolerant and violent....the action taken was in self defense But the violence wasn't SANCTIONED (agreed upon by all parties). I'm not saying it wasn't justified, I'm saying it wasn't sanctioned and the victims of it certainly disagreed to it.. If some of them were killed, they most certainly didn't "tolerate" what was happening to them.
frankster Posted May 20 Report Posted May 20 29 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster It is not there. "Most People" is where I get the "always" if for most people it is "momentary irritation"...that is where the modern science has reach - most people.... Thank you for essentially admitting that you were wrong and misspoke. Now we can move on. Do you know of any body who never had a bad thought?.... My guess is you do not...neither do I If you do know such an individual....please present link and proof ""Fortunately, for most people, occasional bad thoughts are nothing but a momentary irritation" " couple with the below....science is yet to catch up with the Ancients Romans3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 29 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I do not understand the question? Is it that you want me to prove that Buddha or Jesus actual taught or said something? If that is you question....I cannot prove such to you. No, that's not what I'm asking. Because I already know you couldn't. Then what are you asking? 29 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Or Are you asking if Buddha or Jesus is reputed to have taught of the effects of thoughts and their effect on us human beings? It depends. You said: current knowledge backs up the Ancient Teachings Were you talking about current knowledge in GENERAL or were you talking specifically about current knowledge on THOUGHTS? Both general and specific Current knowledge that deals with the issue we are discussing 29 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Do you deny texting the following On May 11. I quote: "Thank you for proving my point that a person can't be BOTH tolerant AND violent at the same time." Now you are saying there is an exception...the exception is contradictory to the above statment. On May 11 you "*The only exception to this is if that violence is CONSENTUAL for example some sort of "sexual" violence or violence in entertainment. In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved." Sir, do you know the difference between a PERSON and a COMMUNITY? But it is still violent....whether consensual communal or sanctioned 29 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: In the above quote you also left out "or a people" frankster.....what is a community made of? Stop playing, man. I am referring to the first quote... 29 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: The Tolerant Buddhist used Violence to curb muslim aggression....The Buddhist are tolerant If they were tolerant, they wouldn't have used UNWANTED (by their victims) violence. Nor would have they resorted to violence. It qualified as a people being both tolerant and violent....the action taken was in self defense But the violence wasn't SANCTIONED (agreed upon by all parties). I'm not saying it wasn't justified, I'm saying it wasn't sanctioned and the victims of it certainly disagreed to it.. If some of them were killed, they most certainly didn't "tolerate" what was happening to them. It is violence nonetheless.... 29 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said:
Pioneer1 Posted May 20 Author Report Posted May 20 frankster Current knowledge that deals with the issue we are discussing Ok, so we're talking about thoughts. What CURRENT KNOWLEDGE about thoughts can be found in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha? Can you give me 3 specific bits of knowledge? But it is still violent....whether consensual communal or sanctioned The difference is...violence that is "sanctioned" and agreed upon by all participating parties does NOT nullify a community's tolerance. The violence isn't malicious. It's welcomed...on both sides. Like some sort of weird sexual violence, it's enjoyed. So the "tolerance" of that community isn't affected. Now if the violence is NOT welcomed by a particular individual involved...that means it's NOT tolerated. And if violence is INFLICTED on another out of malice...that means the person who behaved violently wasn't tolerant.
frankster Posted May 21 Report Posted May 21 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Current knowledge that deals with the issue we are discussing Ok, so we're talking about thoughts. What CURRENT KNOWLEDGE about thoughts can be found in the teachings of Jesus and Buddha? Can you give me 3 specific bits of knowledge? I already did... Here is another ascribe to Jesus Mark 17:20-23 20He continued: “What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. 21For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,j 22greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness. 23All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man.” 8 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: But it is still violent....whether consensual communal or sanctioned The difference is...violence that is "sanctioned" and agreed upon by all participating parties does NOT nullify a community's tolerance. The violence isn't malicious. It's welcomed...on both sides. Like some sort of weird sexual violence, it's enjoyed. So the "tolerance" of that community isn't affected. Now if the violence is NOT welcomed by a particular individual involved...that means it's NOT tolerated. And if violence is INFLICTED on another out of malice...that means the person who behaved violently wasn't tolerant. If individuals are getting hurt....then it is Harmful. If individuals are suffering pain from blows falls or other then it is Violent. If it is a grudge match...then it is Malicious There are groups of individual trying to ban some or all types of contact sport that tend to result in damages What of those who were coerce/forced by either individuals or circumstances to give consent....
Pioneer1 Posted May 22 Author Report Posted May 22 frankster 20He continued: “What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. 21For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,j 22greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness. 23All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man.” Hmmmm..... Before I agree or disagree with this example....what does it mean to "defile" a man? Sounds like an Old English term and I'm not sure of it. If individuals are getting hurt....then it is Harmful. Correct If individuals are suffering pain from blows falls or other then it is Violent. Correct If it is a grudge match...then it is Malicious IF....yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean all matches ARE based on grudges or revenge or with malicious intent. There are groups of individual trying to ban some or all types of contact sport that tend to result in damages If they aren't participating in the violence directly but ARE part of the community, then it becomes a question of HOW MUCH of that community actually feels this way? What percentage do they make up? Practically speaking, you can't expect EVERY SINGLE person in a major city to welcome and agree to a violent sport. But if the MAJORITY do and you add THAT fact to everyone DIRECTLY involved with that sport agreeing to it; then the "tolerance" of that community is maintained. ...from that angle atleast. What of those who were coerce/forced by either individuals or circumstances to give consent.... If FORCE is used....it's no longer considered tolerant. If COERCION is used...it's no longer considered tolerant. ...because both of these involve MALICE and ill will.
frankster Posted May 23 Report Posted May 23 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster 20He continued: “What comes out of a man, that is what defiles him. 21For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,j 22greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness. 23All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man.” Hmmmm..... Before I agree or disagree with this example....what does it mean to "defile" a man? Sounds like an Old English term and I'm not sure of it. I know you know how to find the meaning... Whatever you find please post it and the link. To me... That which defile a man is something that makes you sick or causes harm thru or by pollution and or contamination 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If individuals are getting hurt....then it is Harmful. Correct cool 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If individuals are suffering pain from blows falls or other then it is Violent. Correct Then how is it tolerant when individuals are getting violently hurt and in pain sometimes cause serious and or permanent harm? 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: If it is a grudge match...then it is Malicious IF....yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean all matches ARE based on grudges or revenge or with malicious intent. Most sports are Rivalries....which often entails grudges - from fans and or member of teams or teams themselves. 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: There are groups of individual trying to ban some or all types of contact sport that tend to result in damages If they aren't participating in the violence directly but ARE part of the community, then it becomes a question of HOW MUCH of that community actually feels this way? What percentage do they make up? The exact percentage ...I do not know. What it means is that not all they people or community agrees... 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Practically speaking, you can't expect EVERY SINGLE person in a major city to welcome and agree to a violent sport. Is that you using "nuanced" I am used to you demanding "exactitude" Well at least you admit to it being a violent sport 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: But if the MAJORITY do and you add THAT fact to everyone DIRECTLY involved with that sport agreeing to it; thenh te "tolerance" of that community is maintained. ...from that angle atleast. Majority does not make right..... Most white People were against civil rights for black people until MLKjr swayed them with his speeches and actions 4 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What of those who were coerce/forced by either individuals or circumstances to give consent.... If FORCE is used....it's no longer considered tolerant. If COERCION is used...it's no longer considered tolerant. ...because both of these involve MALICE and ill will. What of the individuals who partakes in these violent sport for money because of their life circumstances
Pioneer1 Posted May 24 Author Report Posted May 24 frankster To me... That which defile a man is something that makes you sick or causes harm thru or by pollution and or contamination Ok, thank you. Now the scripture you quoted says: Quote 21For from within the hearts of men come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,j 22greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness. 23All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man.” CURRENT knowledge...realizes that humans don't think with their hearts. Thinking involves the brain. It appears that this "ancient teaching" contradicts and clashes with this "current knowledge". Then how is it tolerant when individuals are getting violently hurt and in pain sometimes cause serious and or permanent harm? Because they agreed to that violence and were aware of those possibilities as part of their agreement and willingness to participate. Most sports are Rivalries....which often entails grudges - from fans and or member of teams or teams themselves "Often" is the key word in your statement. During the times when grudges are NOT a factor, no malice is involved. What it means is that not all they people or community agrees... Nor do they have to. All of the people don't have to agree on who becomes President of the U.S., as long as the majority of the voters do. All of those directly INVOLVED in the violence must agree, but as far as the community.....it's not reasonable to expect ANY community over 100 people to agree on anything 100%. Is that you using "nuanced" I am used to you demanding "exactitude" It depends on the subject. Somethings DO demand "exactitude", especially when we're dealing with numbers and theoretical ideology. When it comes to social issues, PRACTICALITY is key. A person filing papers and getting a paper cut is technically violent; but we're not going to include THAT...lol. Well at least you admit to it being a violent sport When have I not? Majority does not make right..... Neither does tolerance make something "right". Some things SHOULDN'T be tolerated, but are. Majority is an approximation for community standards. For example.... If the majority of Americans agree that Trump should be President, and the majority of voters vote for him then he becomes President of ALL Americans. That doesn't mean he's "right" for the job or that "all" Americans feel that way. But accepting the desires and will of the MAJORITY is one of the principles a sound community is based on. What of the individuals who partakes in these violent sport for money because of their life circumstances Good for them that they have that opportunity. Some people are dealing with life circumstances and need the money but don't even have THAT option.
frankster Posted May 24 Report Posted May 24 On 5/11/2025 at 8:49 PM, Pioneer1 said: In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved. 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster To me... That which defile a man is something that makes you sick or causes harm thru or by pollution and or contamination Ok, thank you. Now the scripture you quoted says: CURRENT knowledge...realizes that humans don't think with their hearts. Thinking involves the brain. It appears that this "ancient teaching" contradicts and clashes with this "current knowledge". Yes...current knowledge does appear to contradict Ancients knowledge. The Heart is seen as the Seat of Emotions by the ancients....Emotions are motivators Ancient Says We....... use both our Heart and Mind(brain) to think 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Then how is it tolerant when individuals are getting violently hurt and in pain sometimes cause serious and or permanent harm? Because they agreed to that violence and were aware of those possibilities as part of their agreement and willingness to participate. Some one agreeing to violence does not make the violence any less intolerant. 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Most sports are Rivalries....which often entails grudges - from fans and or member of teams or teams themselves "Often" is the key word in your statement. During the times when grudges are NOT a factor, no malice is involved. Yes...often Can you tell when grudges are not a factor? 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What it means is that not all they people or community agrees... Nor do they have to. All of the people don't have to agree on who becomes President of the U.S., as long as the majority of the voters do. Again you contradict yourself... "In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved." Now its a majority....make up your mind bro? 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: All of those directly INVOLVED in the violence must agree, but as far as the community.....it's not reasonable to expect ANY community over 100 people to agree on anything 100%. Now you want to be reasonable...After saying "ALL" So you making a correction? 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Is that you using "nuanced" I am used to you demanding "exactitude" It depends on the subject. Somethings DO demand "exactitude", especially when we're dealing with numbers and theoretical ideology. When it comes to social issues, PRACTICALITY is key. A person filing papers and getting a paper cut is technically violent; but we're not going to include THAT...lol. 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Well at least you admit to it being a violent sport When have I not? Whatever 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Majority does not make right..... Neither does tolerance make something "right". Some things SHOULDN'T be tolerated, but are. Tolerance has little to do with right and wrong...it is more about understanding and or mercy That is why ......Tolerance has limits 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Majority is an approximation for community standards. For example.... If the majority of Americans agree that Trump should be President, and the majority of voters vote for him then he becomes President of ALL Americans. That doesn't mean he's "right" for the job or that "all" Americans feel that way. But accepting the desires and will of the MAJORITY is one of the principles a sound community is based on. This true in a Democracy or places and institutes where the ideology of majority rules apply. In tolerant societies it is more about moralities of Right and Wrong 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: What of the individuals who partakes in these violent sport for money because of their life circumstances Good for them that they have that opportunity. Some people are dealing with life circumstances and need the money but don't even have THAT option. Then it is Malicious violent and intolerant.
Pioneer1 Posted May 25 Author Report Posted May 25 frankster Yes...current knowledge does appear to contradict Ancients knowledge. No Knowledge does NOT contradict itself. If it was knowledge BACK THEN...and the conditions are the same...then it lines up with the knowledge of TODAY. Current knowledge contradicts this particular ancient TEACHING. Some one agreeing to violence does not make the violence any less intolerant. Only when they STOP agreeing to it. Can you tell when grudges are not a factor? Does it matter, for the sake of this discussion? Again you contradict yourself... "In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved." Now its a majority....make up your mind bro? To make it more simple for you to understand: Requirement for the community = Majority Requirement for those involved in the violence = All Comprendes? Now you want to be reasonable...After saying "ALL" So you making a correction? I've BEEN making corrections through out the discussion. ...correcting YOU, lol. Then it is Malicious violent and intolerant. 1. Malicious, violent, and intolerant are 3 different words with 3 different meaning. 2. I understand the "violent" part, but how is THIS particular case "malicious and intolerant"???
frankster Posted May 26 Report Posted May 26 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Yes...current knowledge does appear to contradict Ancients knowledge. No Knowledge does NOT contradict itself. If it was knowledge BACK THEN...and the conditions are the same...then it lines up with the knowledge of TODAY. Current knowledge contradicts this particular ancient TEACHING. Current knowledge and Ancient Knowledge only....appears to contradict. Knowledge today is of yet to confirm unequivocally(having doubt).....What the Ancients are unambiguous(having no doubt) about. Maybe we the people and science of today just do not realize that Heart is also a Sensory organ.. In other words emotions is a way of Knowing and Being. 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Some one agreeing to violence does not make the violence any less intolerant. Only when they STOP agreeing to it. Inflicting pain or accepting pain for money and or sport is an exercise in intolerance for recreational purposes and profit. Hence the reason new laws are being instituted against the encouragement of self harm and hospitalization of those who practice self harm For years there have been laws against suicide... 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Can you tell when grudges are not a factor? Does it matter, for the sake of this discussion? Yes.....because for it to be a rivalry - then one man's gain is another loss Grudges are always involve and a part of it..... It is just that those involve are will to suffer these insults in exchange for money 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Again you contradict yourself... "In that case a community can be both tolerant AND violent since the violence is sanctioned and accepted by all parties involved." Now its a majority....make up your mind bro? To make it more simple for you to understand: Requirement for the community = Majority Requirement for those involved in the violence = All Comprendes? If we go by majority and not by morality then MLKjr would not have succeeded The fans and the entertainers are all involve.....it is symbiotic - they are in on it 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Now you want to be reasonable...After saying "ALL" So you making a correction? I've BEEN making corrections through out the discussion. ...correcting YOU, lol. There you go...delusional 14 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Then it is Malicious violent and intolerant. 1. Malicious, violent, and intolerant are 3 different words with 3 different meaning. 2. I understand the "violent" part, but how is THIS particular case "malicious and intolerant"??? I just explain both above....they all go together The Violence....is a sure sign of Intolerance. The Rivalry.......is a sure sign of grudge - malice
Pioneer1 Posted May 26 Author Report Posted May 26 frankster Current knowledge and Ancient Knowledge only....appears to contradict. I told you that actual knowledge DOES NOT CONTRADICT itself. Current knowledge and ancient TEACHINGS (teachings aren't necessarily knowledge) may contradict, but not ancient "knowledge". Truth is truth, regardless as to the times. Knowledge today is of yet to confirm unequivocally(having doubt).....What the Ancients are unambiguous(having no doubt) about. For example???? Maybe we the people and science of today just do not realize that Heart is also a Sensory organ. Or maybe that particular ancient teaching is WRONG. Ever thought of that???? In other words emotions is a way of Knowing and Being. Emotions is being, but not necessarily "knowing". You can strongly believe something and be emotional about it...and still be WRONG. Inflicting pain or accepting pain for money and or sport is an exercise in intolerance for recreational purposes and profit. Again, if ALL PARTIES INVOLVED in that sport agree to it...then it's not intolerance. Yes.....because for it to be a rivalry - then one man's gain is another loss Grudges are always involve and a part of it..... Always a part of what? It is just that those involve are will to suffer these insults in exchange for money Then they AGREE to it. They TOLERATE it. I just explain both above....they all go together The Violence....is a sure sign of Intolerance. The Rivalry.......is a sure sign of grudge - malice Not necessarily. Ever heard of "friendly competition"? Ever heard of "practice"? Ever heard of "training"? In practicing and training for certain sports violence is involved but usually not malice. Most people are HAPPY to interact with eachother and WELCOME those interactions even if they are violent in order to learn the sport and the best ways to play it.
frankster Posted May 26 Report Posted May 26 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Current knowledge and Ancient Knowledge only....appears to contradict. I told you that actual knowledge DOES NOT CONTRADICT itself. Current knowledge and ancient TEACHINGS (teachings aren't necessarily knowledge) may contradict, but not ancient "knowledge". Truth is truth, regardless as to the times. True....they do not Contradict - they only appear to. Teachings is the act of sharing or imparting Knowledge 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Knowledge today is of yet to confirm unequivocally(having doubt).....What the Ancients are unambiguous(having no doubt) about. For example???? That the Heart is also a Brain 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Maybe we the people and science of today just do not realize that Heart is also a Sensory organ. Or maybe that particular ancient teaching is WRONG. Ever thought of that???? Yes....I have thought of that. Modern Science is beginning to confirm Ancient knowledge 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: In other words emotions is a way of Knowing and Being. Emotions is being, but not necessarily "knowing". You can strongly believe something and be emotional about it...and still be WRONG. Information given or receive as knowledge can be wrong Emotional Knowing/Knowledge is real The Ancients recognize three ways of Knowing:- Intellectual Emotional and Feelings 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Inflicting pain or accepting pain for money and or sport is an exercise in intolerance for recreational purposes and profit. Again, if ALL PARTIES INVOLVED in that sport agree to it...then it's not intolerance. Inflicting pain through violence with the hope or goal of defeating your Opponent/Adversary can only be an exercise in intolerance 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes.....because for it to be a rivalry - then one man's gain is another loss Grudges are always involve and a part of it..... Always a part of what? A part Of any loss suffer through violence or rivalry..... The loss suffer by the loser is the foundation on which grudges fester 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: It is just that those involve are will to suffer these insults in exchange for money Then they AGREE to it. They TOLERATE it. Harming or being harm is intolerable....whether or not you are any one else agrees to it Agreeing to be harm or self harm is seen by the Medical Establishment as a form of illness Many societies are now making encouraging self harm a crime 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: I just explain both above....they all go together The Violence....is a sure sign of Intolerance. The Rivalry.......is a sure sign of grudge - malice Not necessarily. Ever heard of "friendly competition"? Ever heard of "practice"? Ever heard of "training"? All physically violent competition practice or training is an exercise in intolerance 2 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: In practicing and training for certain sports violence is involved but usually not malice. Most people are HAPPY to interact with eachother and WELCOME those interactions even if they are violent in order to learn the sport and the best ways to play it. In order to defeat my opponent...I must figure how best to hurt my adversary so as to gain points or win
Pioneer1 Posted May 26 Author Report Posted May 26 frankster True....they do not Contradict - they only appear to. Teachings is the act of sharing or imparting Knowledge Not necessarily. You can also teach and share FALSE information. Teaching people that murder, lying, and all manner or evil come from the HEARTS of men is teaching FALSE information. That the Heart is also a Brain Humans literally don't think with their hearts. Modern Science is beginning to confirm Ancient knowledge Now THIS statement....I can agree with. Information given or receive as knowledge can be wrong We agree. The Ancients recognize three ways of Knowing:- Intellectual Emotional and Feelings Emotional knowledge = you know how YOU feel. What other kind of way does your emotions give you knowledge? Inflicting pain through violence with the hope or goal of defeating your Opponent/Adversary can only be an exercise in intolerance That's not correct. You just said that the goal was to DEFEAT your opponent/adversary. If that is the goal, then "tolerance" or the lack of it isn't an issue. Harming or being harm is intolerable....whether or not you are any one else agrees to it So if a dentist and a patient agree that for the dentist to remove that patient's tooth they will have to undergo a procedure which will require a certain amount of harm initially....do you consider THAT intolerable? Agreeing to be harm or self harm is seen by the Medical Establishment as a form of illness But the medical establishment ITSELF often makes people sign papers agreeing to medical procedures that may harm them initially before helping them! In order to perform surgery on you a doctor usually has to CUT you...HARM you! All physically violent competition practice or training is an exercise in intolerance I disagree. In order to defeat my opponent...I must figure how best to hurt my adversary so as to gain points or win Sometimes this is the case, sometimes it's a matter of getting hits and kicks in regardless as to whether or not it actually "hurts" the opponent. In boxing, a boxer is scored on how many punches he can land on his opponent even if those punches aren't strong enough to knock them out or otherwise harm them. At any rate..... If BOTH of them agree to this, then there is no malice involved.
frankster Posted May 26 Report Posted May 26 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster True....they do not Contradict - they only appear to. Teachings is the act of sharing or imparting Knowledge Not necessarily. You can also teach and share FALSE information. Teaching people that murder, lying, and all manner or evil come from the HEARTS of men is teaching FALSE information. You can teach falsity.... Teaching that all manner of evil comes from the heart is not false. 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: That the Heart is also a Brain Humans literally don't think with their hearts. Ancient Knowledges teaches that we do 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Modern Science is beginning to confirm Ancient knowledge Now THIS statement....I can agree with. cool 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Information given or receive as knowledge can be wrong We agree. cool 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: The Ancients recognize three ways of Knowing:- Intellectual Emotional and Feelings Emotional knowledge = you know how YOU feel. What other kind of way does your emotions give you knowledge? Search up emotional intelligence or IQ 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Inflicting pain through violence with the hope or goal of defeating your Opponent/Adversary can only be an exercise in intolerance That's not correct. You just said that the goal was to DEFEAT your opponent/adversary. If that is the goal, then "tolerance" or the lack of it isn't an issue. it is the issue 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Harming or being harm is intolerable....whether or not you are any one else agrees to it So if a dentist and a patient agree that for the dentist to remove that patient's tooth they will have to undergo a procedure which will require a certain amount of harm initially....do you consider THAT intolerable? The initial harm is the offending tooth....the dentist malice is directed to that tooth that tooth is you or a part of you. Where is the initial harm? The dentist is not competing with you The dentist is often using anesthesia and antibiotics....to eradicate pain and harm 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Agreeing to be harm or self harm is seen by the Medical Establishment as a form of illness But the medical establishment ITSELF often makes people sign papers agreeing to medical procedures that may harm them initially before helping them! Yes and that is harm and intolerance... hence doctors know it is wrong and strive to mitigate such eventualities 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: In order to perform surgery on you a doctor usually has to CUT you...HARM you! Yes....and that's intolerable primitive and barbaric.. The doctor has malic toward your discomfort...your discomfort is you or a part of you or in you 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: All physically violent competition practice or training is an exercise in intolerance I disagree. Then we agree to disagree 56 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: In order to defeat my opponent...I must figure how best to hurt my adversary so as to gain points or win Sometimes this is the case, sometimes it's a matter of getting hits and kicks in regardless as to whether or not it actually "hurts" the opponent. In boxing, a boxer is scored on how many punches he can land on his opponent even if those punches aren't strong enough to knock them out or otherwise harm them. At any rate..... If BOTH of them agree to this, then there is no malice involved. every strike is malice afore thought
Pioneer1 Posted May 26 Author Report Posted May 26 frankster You can teach falsity.... Agreement. Teaching that all manner of evil comes from the heart is not false. It IS false because evil and the teaching of it don't come from the heart, they come from the brain, the mouth, and other places...but not the heart. The heart is meant to chiefly assist in blood circulation. Ancient Knowledges teaches that we do If it does, it's not KNOWLEDGE...it's FALSEHOOD. SOME ancients may have taught this, while others may not have. Search up emotional intelligence or IQ I'm familiar with the concept. But this concept isn't about your emotions GIVING you knowledge but it's about you having knowledge of OTHER PEOPLE'S EMOTIONS and how to react accordingly. The initial harm is the offending tooth....the dentist malice is directed to that tooth It's not malice...in most cases, lol. It's scientific and emotionless unless you have a crazy dentist who is literally in a fight with that particular tooth, lol. The dentist is often using anesthesia and antibiotics....to eradicate pain and harm Harm is harm regardless of the intensity it's felt. Yes and that is harm and intolerance... hence doctors know it is wrong and strive to mitigate such eventualities It's not wrong, it's right....if it's done to eventually help you and make you healthier. Yes....and that's intolerable primitive and barbaric.. So in your opinion, performing needed surgery on someone is intolerable, primitive, and barbaric????? every strike is malice afore thought No, that's absolutely not true. It's generally routine and almost thoughtless.
frankster Posted May 26 Report Posted May 26 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster You can teach falsity.... Agreement. Yes 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Teaching that all manner of evil comes from the heart is not false. It IS false because evil and the teaching of it don't come from the heart, they come from the brain, the mouth, and other places...but not the heart. The heart is meant to chiefly assist in blood circulation. So says modern science.. Ancient knowledge says otherwise... I will not call it false 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Ancient Knowledges teaches that we do If it does, it's not KNOWLEDGE...it's FALSEHOOD. SOME ancients may have taught this, while others may not have. So far modern science is now say that the heart has a mini brain ...so the are going in the direction of ancient knowledge. 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Search up emotional intelligence or IQ I'm familiar with the concept. But this concept isn't about your emotions GIVING you knowledge but it's about you having knowledge of OTHER PEOPLE'S EMOTIONS and how to react accordingly. Emotional knowing is based on understanding of self first....Your semi permanent mind set from which your biases arise and influence the thoughts you entertain and how you think on them....resulting in actions taken and spoken. 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The initial harm is the offending tooth....the dentist malice is directed to that tooth It's not malice...in most cases, lol. It's scientific and emotionless unless you have a crazy dentist who is literally in a fight with that particular tooth, lol. Patient: The tooth is offensive.....it cause pain and suffering - intolerable Doctor: The tooth is offensive...it must be violently removed and destroyed so he can get paid....intolerable 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The dentist is often using anesthesia and antibiotics....to eradicate pain and harm Harm is harm regardless of the intensity it's felt. Exactly.. and you hurt that which you can't tolerate 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes and that is harm and intolerance... hence doctors know it is wrong and strive to mitigate such eventualities It's not wrong, it's right....if it's done to eventually help you and make you healthier. The pain and harm resulting from his violent action on the tooth and body...that is wrong. So the dentist uses anesthesia and antibiotics to minimize both pain and harm 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes....and that's intolerable primitive and barbaric.. So in your opinion, performing needed surgery on someone is intolerable, primitive, and barbaric????? Yes....its intolerable but sewing up the wound is good Stopping bleeding is good setting bones is good aiding the body to recover is good 5 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: every strike is malice afore thought No, that's absolutely not true. It's generally routine and almost thoughtless. When learning you are trained how to inflict maximum damage...every act is a reinforcement. How can it be thoughtless....it has only become what is called muscle memory - habit The thought has not lessen it is now embedded Yes...it is routine
Pioneer1 Posted May 26 Author Report Posted May 26 frankster So says modern science.. Who are YOU to say otherwise? Are YOU a scientist, or heart expert? I will not call it false You don't have to, I will. If somebody was waiting on YOU to call it "false", then.... ....be waiting a mighty long time, lol. So far modern science is now say that the heart has a mini brain ...so the are going in the direction of ancient knowledge. Does science teach that "all manner of evil" and "evil thoughts" and "theft and murder" come from the heart? Doctor: The tooth is offensive...it must be violently removed and destroyed so he can get paid....intolerable But the tooth doesn't have a WILL to tolerate something or not. It's part of the person, who does. The the tolerance must come from the doctor and the patient. They both AGREE that the tooth must be removed, so it is. Tolerance. and you hurt that which you can't tolerate True, but not always. Not all forms of harm is INtolerance. Yes....its intolerable but sewing up the wound is good Stopping bleeding is good setting bones is good aiding the body to recover is good Right. So why would you call it "primitive" and "barbaric"??? How can it be thoughtless....it has only become what is called muscle memory - habit The thought has not lessen it is now embedded Yes...it is routine OK. But this doesn't mean the person it's being inflicted upon is more or less tolerant of it. It's totally up to THEIR will.
frankster Posted May 26 Report Posted May 26 36 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster So says modern science.. Who are YOU to say otherwise? Are YOU a scientist, or heart expert? none... 36 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: I will not call it false You don't have to, I will. If somebody was waiting on YOU to call it "false", then.... ....be waiting a mighty long time, lol. No one need wait 36 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: So far modern science is now say that the heart has a mini brain ...so the are going in the direction of ancient knowledge. Does science teach that "all manner of evil" and "evil thoughts" and "theft and murder" come from the heart? Not yet....but if it has a mini brain it may well be proven true 36 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Doctor: The tooth is offensive...it must be violently removed and destroyed so he can get paid....intolerable But the tooth doesn't have a WILL to tolerate something or not. It's part of the person, who does. The the tolerance must come from the doctor and the patient. They both AGREE that the tooth must be removed, so it is. Tolerance. The tooth is a part of the body...the insult is to the body the patient feels the pain and is the one harmed...intolerance 36 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: and you hurt that which you can't tolerate True, but not always. Not all forms of harm is INtolerance. if its violent and causes pain and harm....then it is. 36 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: Yes....its intolerable but sewing up the wound is good Stopping bleeding is good setting bones is good aiding the body to recover is good Right. So why would you call it "primitive" and "barbaric"??? Cutting is primitive and barbaric....it causes bleeding and exposes the internal flesh to harm/infection 36 minutes ago, Pioneer1 said: How can it be thoughtless....it has only become what is called muscle memory - habit The thought has not lessen it is now embedded Yes...it is routine OK. But this doesn't mean the person it's being inflicted upon is more or less tolerant of it. It's totally up to THEIR will. The act is intolerant
Pioneer1 Posted May 26 Author Report Posted May 26 frankster Not yet....but if it has a mini brain it may well be proven true Then why did you even bring it up as an example? I asked you what ancient teaching is proven by current knowledge and you brought THAT up as an example. Now you're sitting up there with some shiny eyes talking about... "No, no, Rasta mon...not yet but----" The tooth is a part of the body...the insult is to the body the patient feels the pain and is the one harmed...intolerance A good dentist will give the patient some anesthesia before that tooth is removed so that they CAN tolerate what's happening to them, lol. if its violent and causes pain and harm....then it is. Again, not all violence and harm is intolerance. If: 1. It's done for the benefit of the person it's inflicted upon, and 2. If all parties involved (doctor and patient and medical staff) agree to it. Then it is TOLERATED for the good of the person. Cutting is primitive and barbaric....it causes bleeding and exposes the internal flesh to harm/infection The METHOD of cutting can be primitive and barbaric if not performed correctly and with proper protocol. The act is intolerant The act itself isn't tolerant or intolerant because it doesn't have a will. The person the act is being performed ON either tolerates it or does not.
frankster Posted May 27 Report Posted May 27 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: frankster Not yet....but if it has a mini brain it may well be proven true Then why did you even bring it up as an example? I asked you what ancient teaching is proven by current knowledge and you brought THAT up as an example. Now you're sitting up there with some shiny eyes talking about... "No, no, Rasta mon...not yet but----" I brought it up because it is relevant "The field of organ transplantation, particularly heart transplantation, has brought to light interesting phenomena challenging traditional understandings of memory, identity, and consciousness. Studies indicate that heart transplant recipients may exhibit preferences, emotions, and memories resembling those of the donors, suggesting a form of memory storage within the transplanted organ. Mechanisms proposed for this memory transfer include cellular memory, epigenetic modifications, and energetic interactions. Moreover, the heart's intricate neural network, often referred to as the "heart brain," communicates bidirectionally with the brain and other organs, supporting the concept of heart-brain connection and its role in memory and personality." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11061817/ 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The tooth is a part of the body...the insult is to the body the patient feels the pain and is the one harmed...intolerance A good dentist will give the patient some anesthesia before that tooth is removed so that they CAN tolerate what's happening to them, lol. The needle used to administer the anesthesia...will cause pain 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: if its violent and causes pain and harm....then it is. Again, not all violence and harm is intolerance. If: 1. It's done for the benefit of the person it's inflicted upon, and 2. If all parties involved (doctor and patient and medical staff) agree to it. Then it is TOLERATED for the good of the person. Whether they agree or not does not stop the harm and the pain that will ensue 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: Cutting is primitive and barbaric....it causes bleeding and exposes the internal flesh to harm/infection The METHOD of cutting can be primitive and barbaric if not performed correctly and with proper protocol. It is always is... The protocol is to mininize the damage done so it doesn't worsen. 12 hours ago, Pioneer1 said: The act is intolerant The act itself isn't tolerant or intolerant because it doesn't have a will. The person the act is being performed ON either tolerates it or does not. The decision to and immediate effect is what makes it intolerant
ProfD Posted May 27 Report Posted May 27 The heart is a muscle with the sole purpose of pumping blood throughout our bodies. The brain made up of 60% fat is the super-computer running the whole show. When the heart shuts down, the brain is still processing for a few minutes. OK. I'll sit back and continue to enjoy the tennis match. Carry on fellas. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now