War and world Leaders

Post Reply New Topic

Hmm.... I have always considered the problems in society to exist from disrespect for rule of law and for the ethical responsibilities that one is considered to hold, AKA, I say I will serve a group therefore it is ethical to serve, this can be related back to the idea that by saying as such you agreed to it. Greed, ego and pride, do not inherently get in the way of ethics or rule of law so I do not see them as necessarily the problem.

You are aware of yourself? I dont think so, but apparently, what do I know? I think you used the word 'logic' more then anyone in this forum has in their entire time here - I'm right? Look again, there bro, I've admitted I could be wrong several times - you have not -NOT ONE BLOODY TIME - NOT ONCE - NOT IN THIS THREAD OR THE OTHER. I'm right? ha, I dont even think you read anything, you just looked at my posts and assumed a bunch of stuff. Self aware? Yikes, and buddhism is not for you...

...So, you dont think 'Buddhism' is the truth - You know what, I dont exactly 100% agree with it either, but for you to knock and call meditation a "waste of time" tells me you really dont have much to say on the subject so telling me its a 'waste' is simply an observation based out of ignorance and nothing more. You probably think its simply 'blanking your mind' don't you? you probably know as much on meditation as the general public (which is nothing).

Perhaps you should have continued in on your post, above, and stated "Corvus, logically, you are wrong" and started each post like that because it would coincide with everything else you 'logically' say. Go to a university - you seem to know everything (even though you stated I did, but again, right or wrong). Hell, write a book entitled:

"Lies, blackmail, distrust, greed, pride, and ego - The logical way to take over the world."

But, you're right! Someone who supports greed and ego and pride and whatever else it takes to climb to the top (although, as long as its logical its "ok") is all over the 'truth' thing and understands it perfectly. Its like arguing that a "'lie' is ok as long as its the logical thing to do" while stating how after "truth" he is... BS buddy, <removed> I had here that I thought what you stood for is absolute 'crap' since you argue 'truth' and argue 'greed/crappy/selfish logic to get what you want' in the same thread - you are clueless.

As for greed not being a problem - you're right, ask North Korea how they are doing compared to their leader. God, you ever open a news paper?

So, on this note OF BS, I'm out. It stinks too much of ego. Btw, I'll never state I know more then someone - I'll leave that for you and your inability to ever EVER admit to being wrong - its something that one can accomplish if he wishes to waste time in meditation

Oh, and Rome collapsed and I bet no one thought of that happening..

Last edited by Corvus on 11 Jan 2007, 5:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

One admittance of being wrong



even admitted to POTENTIALLY being wrong there before I heard a response as I wasnt sure



3 times I admitted it - BUT I " tend to think that your (my) viewpoint must be true because it is yours it seems and have attacked me on personal grounds of sociopathy" - You bet - I make sure to cover my ass

Are you not a sociopath if you will step over others to get to the top? Sounds pretty good to me < -- go ahead and argue it, brother

P.S. I'm also aware of the 'Ego' I used here, as well. In case you were to point it out - Know I know.

I am aware of myself, my ideas, my beliefs, etc. Perhaps I don't fit within your idea of self-awareness. I have used the term logic more so than anybody else, it is true on that. The reason I criticize you for thinking you are right is because I understand your criticisms but think they are inapplicable while you seem to ignore mine and argue based upon mythology. I did look at your posts and perhaps I did end up assuming something, but that is because the very nature of your attacks and arguments was based upon your assumptions to a certain point and certain end and by attacking those assumptions you attacked me, that does leave me questioning, would it not do the same to you? I will admit wrong when I believe I have been proved wrong on this matter, but I think that thus far troubles have been you misunderstanding me.
Well, on meditation I was probably talking about myself, not about your meditation which you enjoy. I know I wouldn't like meditation, I don't like staying in one place for any long period of time and I prefer active seeking of information towards looking inward. If I forgot to state so, I meant meditation in the manner that the general public views it, not in thinking as I know that meditation can be called a synonym of thinking.
Well, the only thing is that I think that your logical view is underdeveloped in a manner. The reason I state this is that I think that there are many examples of greed doing good and of other things you deny the importance of being used for ends. I think that your rejection tends to be more emotional than logical, as indicated with your calling me a sociopath and what I feel to be consistent misinterpretation and referring to religious texts. The only thing is that I don't argue for the objective end of greed being right, I argue for the point of greed not being wrong in all cases. As well, I am at a University, I am not a doctor, but I might eventually get a doctorate, I know I am capable of it.

Actually, there is a book sort of like that, although it isn't about taking over the world nor is it about lauding traditional sins but rather is very amoral and argues that Princes should use any measure to maintain power. It is known as "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli, and it is a very influential book in the world of political science. I would consider that book one of my favorites.
A lie can be the logical thing. In fact, I would argue that the truth tells us that lying is permissible for certain causes. Being at the top does not mean full understanding but understanding requires knowing about how such things work. We should study man as he is and his modes, not impose our ideas of right and wrong motivations upon him.
If North Korea's ruler was greedy he would trade and support economic growth. This would allow him to buy even more and more junk he would want and become richer. The tinpot dictator there doesn't want wealth he wants power and the only way for him to maintain power is hold down all aspects of society under his thumb. If he allowed individual freedom and individuals to act upon their greedy impulses so long as they follow rules, North Korea would end up being a prosperous nation.

Prove me wrong. You have dissed me and etc and I feel that you have further to go before actually denting my world view. I accept some of your points as being true but I think a lot of them are untrue and a result of incorrect analysis of current realities and etc and as such I don't accept the conclusion.
You said that you never said anything on the matter, and only did something of that nature because it would support an argument you wouldn't. If an argument by your opponent goes against yours and he thinks he draws off of common conclusions then backtracking is the best way to undermine him.
Actually I looked at that as an attempt to attack my point of view and say pretty much the following "even if I may be wrong, you are wronger". This goes in line with the spirit of that statement as it seems to denounce my credibility on this issue.
The admission really isn't what I consider as important as I believe that you mentioned that you and I both believed that logic was correct. I would argue that the fact that you were attacking your opponent upon grounds of sociopathy is a sign of lacking objectivity and possibly inability to accept his logic.

Depending on how you define stepping over others. If we define sociopathy as having anti-social personality disorder then we must look at the following criteria:
1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
2. deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated fights or assaults (both physically or mentally)
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Now, greedy people are going to conform to social norms to a great extent as doing so will likely hurt them so not 1. They can be deceitful so 2 applies. The will not be impulsive necessarily as that threatens their long term interests so not 3. For them to be irritable and aggressive would go against their long term interests as it could ruin them financcially so not 4. Reckless disregard for others could be argued but not necessarily for self as the dead collect no further pay so likely not all of 5. Irresponsibility is not indicative as a reputation for hard work is helpful in getting pay as is a good credit and other things, so not 6. Lack of remorse can be argued, so 7.

So, only 2 out of 7 requirements. Really greed would probably fit in more with narcissistic personality disorder, and those people can effectively help society if we give them incentive. As well, I never stated I believed in getting to the top through lying and deceit or anything of that nature. It is logical for some, I don't like doing it though so it is not a logical act for me.

So what do You two know.