Tridimity

Thanks

Hi, I'm trying to access my blog via the Blogs tab and receive this message: There appears to be an error with the database. If you are seeing this page, it means there was a problem communicating with our database. Sometimes this error is temporary and will go away when you refresh the page. Sometimes the error will need to be fixed by an administrator before the site will become accessible again. You can try to refresh the page by clicking here Please could anyone help with this? Tri

Obviously but there has been zero opportunity to make those changes - instead any who introduce a controversial topic are silenced outright.

I restarted the topic under the thread title 'Neutral Comment' and that too was locked - with 2 Mod notes for good measure!

But unlike speeding, there could have been the potential here to very quickly change the thread so as to promote productive discussion, but that chance was denied by the Mods. I don't care for your opinion and am not accountable to you. You cannot provide a solution if the moderator decides to discard your piece wholesale - it would be the equivalent of flatly rejecting a manuscript rather than suggesting points for improvement.

I would have been receptive to criticism if it had been justified but instead it was handed from on high with zero opportunity for discussion. If the Mods had suggested the necessary modifications e.g. change to thread title, more commentary, I would have implemented those changes - that would have been constructive criticism. I haven't seen a single Mod take into consideration any of the reasons as to why I posted in that manner, and frankly I don't look forward to coming here again, and clearly my contributions here will not be missed. Surprising that Despedida

Ophi, The religious leaders whom you have encountered certainly sound worthy only of admiration. Please could you clarify, what would be the advice of your local minister to a child or young person who is attempting to make some difficult decision in life?

Some people find that it's better to live by oneself than to live with the wrong person; some people would feel lonelier by sharing their life with a partner who does not understand their true nature, than they would by living with their self.

"Mudslinging" and "preachiness" - not very helpful in trying to understand the meanings - replacing one verb or noun with a synonym. The Mod actions certainly prevented any 'flame wars' or 'soapboxing' but also prevented any productive discussion of what I think is an important topic. New method for cancer prophylaxis: kill every cell in your body before it has a chance to go awry "If you find yourself on the end of a mod note, it's fair to say you made a mistake somewhere." In order for that statement to have any validity, you must have first given some independent thought as to the rationale of Mod actions following members' posts. In order to extrapolate to my particular situation, you would need to extend the same thought processes to this particular case, and make a judgment. You have already said that you "don't know" so the extrapolation is invalid. I think you actually agree with the Mod action but are too politically correct to say so. Say so! I really don't care Mod notes make the poster, who may have contributed a substantial number of quality posts, look like an idiot by immediately cutting them off and censoring their opinions not only on the topic at hand but also on their treatment at the hands of Mods who are, let's face it, probably younger and less qualified who nevertheless feel it is their noble duty to silence anything that might rock the boat. So the poster is disrespected and shamed, the Mod leaves on high horse, and there is no opportunity for the poster to justify their actions. The title was strong - I have already mentioned that the argument against the generalisation of the thread title would have been well received within the thread itself, but alas any communication was prevented before any such discussion could take place. Not all religions recommend physical violence as a means of modifying children's behaviour, but in this particular case the suggestions were inextricably linked to Christianity, and symptomatic of a trend that pervades some religions especially Christianity and Islam - to promote the absolute submission of women and children to authority figures: the family patriarch, religious authorities and God. The trend of promoting absolute submission of subjects - especially women and children - to the will of male family members, religious authorities and God stands. This does not occur with all religions (e.g. it does not feature in Buddhism or Humanism, both religions I adore) but does pervade some of the major world religions, especially Christianity and Islam. If you can prove this not to be the case I will be receptive to withdrawing my entire argument.

There are certain interesting linguistic terms here, 'flame wars' is presumably any heated discussion, silly me I thought that was the point of a discussion Forum. Any unwanted emotional response is labelled 'soapboxing'. So what if the children involved in these abuse cases were to come out and emotionally appeal against their abusers, would that also be soapboxing? Perhaps if they set their case in context with a few lines of text it will be worthy of an audience? I appreciate that not all religious people use physical violence as a means of punishing their children, and it would have been quite an effective argument against my thread title, if posed within the thread. However, the source of the advised punishment methods in this particular case was inextricably linked to the religious affiliations of the parents and is, I think, reflected more broadly in the nature of religions which demand that believers become subservient to the will of God and religious authority figures. My hope was that a member would comment further on what I had posted and I would subsequently follow up - I never planned to spawn a 'hit-and-run' thread.

Anybody know what these 'appropriate' channels are? Why is it okay to publically criticise a member's contribution but not for a member to publically criticise a Mod's contribution? They should either both be public or both be private.

TAR, While I agree with most of your points above, I would add that, even if every other single human being on the planet with whom one could make a reference to morality, were to deem it morally acceptable to harm oneself or others - this does not mean to say that to do so is justified. The world and its inhabitants may go a long way in shaping our conception of right and wrong, but ultimately as free-thinking individuals we must choose where to draw the line and make our moral distinction from the crowd. This, perhaps, is why I venerate Socrates and his courage in questioning received wisdom. Tri

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25268343 I found this article interesting and thought that others might. It features religious practices which include physical punishment so as to subjugate children completely to the will of parents. The purpose of the thread is of course for discussion so please comment if you wish to. It may be impossible for members outside the UK to access the website but I have been reliably informed that to include the text is not acceptable - so you will just have to guess what is in the article. Good luck! I have feelings about this, being human, but I will not mention them because to do so would be SOAPBOXING.

TAR, People are capable of change, so even those who display the negative characteristics aforementioned, may transform into tolerant, considerate, thinking individuals. However, the fact that a person displaying those negative characteristics, deems me to be negative in some way, e.g. if they say 'you're not a nice person', then I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt and interpret it in the context of the source origin (a closed-minded, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic, conceited bully). Their comment is then contrary to reason because, if my espoused values are opposite to theirs, I can be assured that I am infact a nice person. This attitude can be dangerous though: if you do not accept that morality consists of not harming others or oneself, then the pack may lead you (well, not you personally, because you are better than all of this) but may lead a person astray to commit atrocities. This is why independent thinking and freedom of conscience is essential. I believe that people are fundamentally good and that it is circumstances that lead them to commit immoral acts - if a person were left on their own, to listen to their inner voice or conscience, without influence from circumstances or events (e.g. poverty and lack of social mobility; withholding of love by parents and others; physical, sexual, emotional or psychological abuse by others) then they would immediately recognise the correctness of harming neither oneself or others. Tri

Drat. It's an EE network ad that features Kevin Bacon and others doing the conga. You'll just have to take my word for it

People whose existence is contingent on some other variable? Well, if one is not going to think globally, what is the point in engaging in 21st century society? It seems like an awful waste to me, to have at one’s disposal the technology and financial and time resources that even greater men and women of previous centuries lacked, and to fail to investigate beyond one’s locality. Taking on an investigation of the whole world’s human populations is an enormous undertaking but vastness is no excuse for ignorance. The study of life itself is a vast undertaking but that does not mean that individual Biologists give up in despair – for one, because they are each contributing and can rely on their mates in a different field to worry about the rest - so too it can be with Anthropology. Even as an individual layman (or laywoman, that sounds wrong, like an instruction, anyhow) there will be benefits to amateur investigation of the nature of the world’s peoples. Some degree of stereotyping, or at least generalisation, will necessarily occur – the same is true with any scientific finding and one expects to meet a statistically small number of anomalies that buck the trend. In fact, I am not sure that locality means very much – currently I am living in certain geographical dimensions, but if I were to travel to different geographical dimensions, then that would become my new locality. My sense of self would be unaltered, except that I would have different experiences. Any action that is performed in locality A or B is going to affect the globe in some way – releasing a greenhouse gas at either locality will impact on the globe. I’m not sure what locality even is – we are citizens of the world, some are unfortunately unable to traverse the globe because of lack of resources, but they are nevertheless citizens of the world. This decision is made on the basis of case-by-case analysis of individuals: if a person is closed-minded, bigoted, sexist, racist, homophobic, conceited or bullying – then I will not care for their opinion of myself.

This is my favourite advertisement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALcJXQxdQ48 This is how society should be - everybody involved, everybody moving in the same direction together, everybody connected, everybody happy...

TAR, I think you overestimate the advantages of face-to-face interaction: people are capable of manipulating their own body language, voice intonation and facial expressions so as to convey to their viewer whatever message they wish to send, which may not be the message that it is in their mind. Close proximity interaction is no guarantee of mutual honesty. Conversely, even if a person uses an avatar and alias on the web, so long as that avatar or alias remains constant, it really does not matter what the label is. I have become accustomed to your alias TAR, which for me represents a sweet yet worldly family man who errs more towards conservatism than I but who is nonetheless friendly and whom I enjoy talking with. Finding out that your real name is Jeff would not change anything. Even if the above identity is not your true identity, at least I know that whomever is communicating under the alias 'TAR' seeks to represent the above identity. And, in fact, this is as close to the truth as we get in any close proximity relationship. You could be married to a person for 40 years and, at the end, the extrapolation that 'my wife has characteristics X, Y, Z' is still only a hypothesis. You are presented with a portrayal of characteristics and will never know 100% if they are bona fide or mere shadows. As for your global/local thought/action, what of the following: Think globally, act globally? Think locally, act locally? It depends what you mean by 'responsible to them for my behaviour.' You have a duty to refrain from harming others but you have no duty to be judged positively by others! (Some people's judgments are not worth caring about and, indeed, endorsement from these people would amount to great insult). As for the last part, this is the most difficult part with regards assertiveness: it is not possible to interact assertively with somebody who does not care about what you think or how you feel. Tri

Okay, in the majority of cases the victims are the ones who trust the criminal - people who are distrustful of potential criminals will generally be more difficult to exploit precisely because they will be avoiding exploitation. Because, for example, if a man has determined to burgle your house having gained your trust and taken a spare key, he is unlikely to back out because you trust in him. His objective was always to steal your belongings and your trust in him is not going to change that. A safe one

The victims are always the ones who trust It reminds me of that saying, 'Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get me'. It's true - the trustworthiness of others is independent of our capacity to trust. Trusting in a criminal isn't going to make him/her more trustworthy and choosing not to trust in a benign person isn't going to make them any less trustworthy. So, it is safer not to trust.

That's BS. If you do not update your personal belief system according to available evidence (e.g. being cheated on in a relationship; being mugged in the street) then you are putting yourself in danger by trusting others - even if you are yourself trustworthy. For the same reason, TAR chooses to lock his front door when he leaves his house - sure, he would not burgle others and so is trustworthy, but that does not mean to say that it would be sensible for him to assume that others think in the same way that he does.

But the welfare system is forced altruism, so aren't you really arguing against the welfare system? The populace is collectively responsible for the rules of the welfare system, and their will is (more or less) represented by elected representatives. I would agree that their is a need to more directly gauge consent from individuals before forcing them to contribute to the welfare system, but then such a design would need to ensure that the private individuals, as it were, were unable to benefit from the system to which they have contributed nothing. In principle I think that this would be a great liberal idea but in practice it would be messy and may have unforeseen consequences. All in attendance believe they have no reason to lock anything up to protect it from being taken or abused by anybody else in attendance. An important distinction, but one coming from a mind turning more and more like that of Godel who, out of paranoia at being poisoned, trusted nobody but his wife to prepare his meals, and subsequently died of starvation when his wife was hospitalised for 6 months and therefore unable to prepare his meals. So, you know, pinches of salt.

It does depend on how you define happiness, as iNow has highlighted. I imagine that happiness can buy minimisation of suffering but that, at some point, the overall benefit to the happiness/unhappiness scale plateaus since it is impossible to buy self-esteem or the love of a good person. I was watching this TED talk earlier tonight http://www.ted.com/talks/enrique_penalosa_why_buses_represent_democracy_in_action.html on the importance of prioritising sustainable, safe and spacious transport infrastructure for the financially underpriveleged (i.e. those whom rely on public transport), although the speaker, Enrique Penalosa, also suggests that: His overall message and his propositions are admirable imo e.g. designs for new cities in developing countries that involve equal road space granted per person rather than per vehicle so democratising resource allocation and granting individuals equal respect and importance, regardless of financial status. It comes back to prioritising social wellbeing over wealth accumulation and finding ways to make the markets work in the interest of social outputs not just profit creation.