I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul - Page 6

juantoo3 · 06-29-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Back to the point: the alleged bad teachers and bad students are also still capable of teaching and learning... as long as they have not been censored or suspended from whatever or whomever it is that they would have taught or learned from.

In a perfect world, yes.

Who among us is perfect? I'm not.

That is not to say I cannot learn from a bad student or a bad teacher, but typically I learn what *not* to do, say or think.

In a real world, or some cyber-semblence of it, sometimes other considerations must take precedence. Respect is the biggest consideration, in my opinion. Without respect, such "teaching and learning" disintegrates into chaos and serves no purpose other than background noise.

cyberpi · 06-29-2008, 08:25 PM

Yes, those who moderate speech by censorship and suspension are exceedingly disrespectful. In the act they are horrid teachers. Self-righteous. That "teaching and learning" disintegrates into chaos, but does still serve a purpose. An example. Moderating speech by censorship and suspension is a false dichotomy that entrenches intolerance, making it more and more difficult to live peaceably with our neighbors.

Quahom1 · 07-01-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Yes, those who moderate speech by censorship and suspension are exceedingly disrespectful. In the act they are horrid teachers. Self-righteous. That "teaching and learning" disintegrates into chaos, but does still serve a purpose. An example. Moderating speech by censorship and suspension is a false dichotomy that entrenches intolerance, making it more and more difficult to live peaceably with our neighbors.

If my children are subject to a neighbor's children that is ahborrant, and disrespectful, I will "censure" that situation for the sake of my children.

If one of my peers is disrespectful of another peer or another peer's way of life, I will address that quite quickly.

If authority is given to some to keep the peace and maintain a semblance of respect for the whole, it would be a delinquency of the duties of the one's placed in authority for that purpose, to not regulate that which the majority finds disrespectful.

Anarchy hold no respect for anyone, including the anarchist. There is no semblance of law, infact there is no law. Which by all rights, Mob rule could take affect and go after the "anarchist" with what ever form of "justice" they wish to impose.

Your philosophy taken to a greater degree, is walking a high and narrow fence, with no net on either side...

cyberpi · 07-02-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

If my children are subject to a neighbor's children that is ahborrant, and disrespectful, I will "censure" that situation for the sake of my children.

I submit another approach: Rather than keeping the children in the dark offer them advice of how to handle and contend with the language of other children on their own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

If one of my peers is disrespectful of another peer or another peer's way of life, I will address that quite quickly.

I think a 3rd party response is good... with the emphasis of responding with words and rebuke rather than censure and suspension. Yet I also recognize the value of the one peer learning to equally speak up for their way of life with the other peer, without 3rd party interference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

If authority is given to some to keep the peace and maintain a semblance of respect for the whole, it would be a delinquency of the duties of the one's placed in authority for that purpose, to not regulate that which the majority finds disrespectful.

A speech thug does not bring peace, nor respect, to the world... no more than a massacre grows peace or respect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Anarchy hold no respect for anyone, including the anarchist. There is no semblance of law, infact there is no law.

I think you have confused the role of speech in law. Without speech the law is vacant and mute. You think I am promoting anarchy, whereas I am promoting law. Albeit perhaps not the law that you favor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Which by all rights, Mob rule could take affect and go after the "anarchist" with what ever form of "justice" they wish to impose.

Does a mob NOT utilize censure and suspension? I like to refer it as "Just-US".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Your philosophy taken to a greater degree, is walking a high and narrow fence, with no net on either side...

So then best to not fall down to the level of those teaching speech by censure and suspension. It is a false dichotomy that entrenches intolerance, making it more and more difficult to live peaceably with our neighbors.

Quahom1 · 07-06-2008, 01:41 AM

Lol, God help the people you ever lead...they'll be dead, and I suspect so will you, with this philosophy.

Dysfunctional at best...

cyberpi · 07-06-2008, 09:34 PM

I suppose that could be true if hearing ticks, tones, and words could truly hurt someone.

Quahom1 · 07-07-2008, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I suppose that could be true if hearing ticks, tones, and words could truly hurt someone.

"Much can be said of a person's character by the way they use their tongue. Sanaca once said, "Speech is the index of the mind." Jesus said that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Mat. 12:34) According to Proverbs 18:21, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof." In James 3:6, the Bible says that the tongue is "a fire, a world of iniquity", and James 3:8 calls the tongue a "deadly poison." "

So you see, words can hurt someone, quite badly.

cyberpi · 07-20-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

So you see, words can hurt someone, quite badly.

I submit that it is not a word or a pattern of words that hurts someone, but that it is a deceitful tongue that speaks them or the unforgiving ear that won't hear them that may bring themselves some hurt.

Quahom1 · 07-20-2008, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I submit that it is not a word or a pattern of words that hurts someone, but that it is a deceitful tongue that speaks them or the unforgiving ear that won't hear them that may bring themselves some hurt.

Perhaps it would be better defined as the deceitful or unforgiving heart and soul that may bring hurt, to everyone involved. Even a look or a gesture can hurt, to someone who for one reason or other, vested a caring interest in the one doing the hurting. In fact, deliberate silence can do the same thing. And it all means one thing...rejection. And since humans are wired to be social creatures, rejection is the hardest form of pain to take, regardless of who started the process.

cyberpi · 07-21-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Perhaps it would be better defined as the deceitful or unforgiving heart and soul that may bring hurt, to everyone involved. Even a look or a gesture can hurt, to someone who for one reason or other, vested a caring interest in the one doing the hurting. In fact, deliberate silence can do the same thing. And it all means one thing...rejection. And since humans are wired to be social creatures, rejection is the hardest form of pain to take, regardless of who started the process.

So to combat your feelings of rejection by someone's words, you think it good to reject someone for their words. I can see how someone's words can hurt as you insist on burning bridges over them.

Yet you suggest this is being a loving protector, assuming or wanting others to think the same. That reminds me of the mafia and gangs and governments that employ a similar protection racket: "You need my protection." Oh joy... another need.

Quahom1 · 07-21-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So to combat your feelings of rejection by someone's words, you think it good to reject someone for their words. I can see how someone's words can hurt as you insist on burning bridges over them.

Yet you suggest this is being a loving protector, assuming or wanting others to think the same. That reminds me of the mafia and gangs and governments that employ a similar protection racket: "You need my protection." Oh joy... another need.

I was talking about people in general. And rejecting or "policing" slander, libelness, nonsense or hyper criticality has nothing to do with rejecting a person.

No one has to accept the rantings of a mad man. However as a consciensious society, it is obligatory and humane to accept the man as part of the whole.

FYI, I'm not the one burning bridges here, nor do I feel rejected, or in pain...