Very far away or very long ago = Doesn't matter

[Fluidic Kimbo]

What do you think about people who are okay with something bad happening so long as:
A) It happened very far away
or
B) It happened a very long time ago

So for example, I think most Americans or Europeans would be against stopping an 8-year-old child going to school so that the child can do labour for their business all day.

But if the bad thing is happening 7,000 miles away, for example in China, then they don't mind. It isn't difficult to find an American or European who is happy to buy a cheap product at their local supermarket -- a product which is so cheap because people are being exploited a few thousand miles away.

So are bad things okay so long as they happened far away or a long time ago?

[BG]

Out of site.....out of mind.

[Proximal]

The first one I believe is referred to as negative responsibility. If you believe in that, you are responsible for your negative doings, but also responsible for other negative doings if you are capable of preventing it. I used to worry more about others in other parts of the world, but to me it got to be too much and try to do more for those in my country only. I believe that might be part of the whole discussion we’ve been having in other threads, where some of those ideals are considered socialistic. The cheap Chinese made products is also being discussed and it’s really an economic concern to me, but not a human rights concern (to me).

I don’t like to judge things that are now considered wrong and apply them to past actions. Like that whole Kavanaugh issue we had here. What he did then, though not really a good thing was “acceptable” back then. To judge him now and hold him accountable by today's standards for those past actions isn’t right in my opinion.

Why the philosophical question if you don’t mind me asking?

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Why the philosophical question if you don’t mind me asking?

Because I'm in my early 30's and it has taken me this long to realise that half the people who I thought were good honest decent folk when I was growing up, are actually pure scum to heart.

[Proximal]

Because I'm in my early 30's and it has taken me this long to realise that half the people who I thought were good honest decent folk when I was growing up, are actually pure scum to heart.

A lot of folks do bad things, myself included. I know I’m not perfect and make mistakes, so I try not to be too critical. Mind sharing, what was an example. TY, I’m e-mailing off a lot of good-byes to my kids and it’s sad at times, I need a break.

[2jz_calgary]

Because I'm in my early 30's and it has taken me this long to realise that half the people who I thought were good honest decent folk when I was growing up, are actually pure scum to heart.

I realized most people are phonies a very long time ago. That being said we all sin even so called "saints:

[sv.elia]

Generally the focus will be on the immediate good, which won’t come from worrying about someone far away, but rather helping close relatives/community members. It’s not a bad thing though. If it’s not within your power to solve something, then worrying about it instead of focusing your energy on what you can do is pointless.

Because I'm in my early 30's and it has taken me this long to realise that half the people who I thought were good honest decent folk when I was growing up, are actually pure scum to heart.

I too am a disappointed idealist with a very abrupt introduction to the fact that selflessness doesn’t exist in the average person. But I concluded that people are not scum, they all just want to thrive. And if thriving looks the same way for two persons they can tie a partnership. If it doesn't, one will get stepped over. If it looks the same for more persons they can form a team or community. But they still actually want to thrive themselves. For example: if you’re happy with a hobby but your partner won’t see a benefit out of it, he/she won’t be for it. Pure altruism is a very utopic idea. People are good as long as there’s mutual gain and there are very few enlightened exceptions (Buddha, Jesus etc.).

^The above applies to distance problems as well. Humans, being wired to thrive for evolution purposes, think that what brings no return is unworthy of considering.

Personally I believe we’re all facets of the same one consciousness, so your pain is my pain. But we’re still, myself included, a long way from acting as One.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Generally the focus will be on the immediate good, which won’t come from worrying about someone far away, but rather helping close relatives/community members. It’s not a bad thing though. If it’s not within your power to solve something then worrying about it, instead of focusing your energy on what you can do, is pointless.

You can order your printed circuit boards from a Chinese town which is known for child labour, or you can order them from 50 miles away and pay three times the price. You have a choice in that. And your choice has an effect on other people's lives.

I too am a disappointed idealist with a very abrupt introduction to the fact that selflessness doesn’t exist in the average person. But I concluded that people are not scum, they all just want to thrive.

While sometimes I like to say that some people are 'pure evil' -- such as my last employer who tried to fire 7 employees who signed a petition against the manager -- I know that no entity in the universe is either entirely good nor entirely evil (supernatural deities aside).

And if thriving looks the same way for two persons they can tie a partnership. If it doesn't, one will get stepped over. If it looks the same for more persons they can form a team or community. But they still actually want to thrive themselves.

I think it's a good to try hone your welbeing to the point of being happy to be just another brick in the wall. (Sort of like how I know my individual cornet part in my brass band sounds kinda shit by itself, but I'm part of a bigger nicer sound).

For example: if you’re happy with a hobby but your partner won’t see a benefit out of it, he/she won’t be for it. Pure altruism is a very utopic idea.

One of the most erotic things a woman ever said to me when I was trying to chat her up and showed her a photograph of how I sprayed my rollerblades bright green, she paused for a moment and simply said, "Hobby?".

I think it's very beneficial for a person to realise that all of their interests and tastes and hobbies are nothing more than personal preferences. Every one of us is nothing more than a genetic lottery and life experiences (which then leads to personalised tastes, styles, interests and hobbies).

So if my future wife rides quad skates (two wheels at the front, two wheels at the back), then instead of me constantly bashing her with my rationale on why inline skates are vastly superior, I can be glad that she has a hobby. I might even feign an interest in her shit hobby just for the sake of spending time together -- or even better if we can skate together in the kind of skates we like (me in inline, her in quads).

People are good as long as there’s mutual gain and there are very few enlightened exceptions (Buddha, Jesus etc.).

Now we're getting into supernatural deities.

The above applies to distance problems as well. Humans, being wired to thrive for evolution purposes, think that what brings no return is unworthy of considering.

Humans have habits in their behaviour but also in their thoughts too. I propose to you that your above assertion is nothing more more than a habit pattern of the mind, and can be changed. I mean people have been martyring themselves for millenia.

Personally I believe we’re all facets of the same one consciousness, so your pain is my pain. But we’re still, myself included, a long way from acting as One.

This is a nice thought, but in reality a person needs self-esteem and a sense of purpose in order to be happy and thrive. And while we have these ideas of self-esteem, identity, and belonging, we're always gonna offend each other now and again. It will be a very large step in the evolution of the human mind before we can truly live in peace. They say behavioural modernity began in humans about 50 to 60 thousand years ago, and so it might be another 50 millenia before we can truly be a peaceful species.

[sv.elia]

You debate by attributing an absolute value to the others person's arguments, give a look at this:

ESV: People are good as long as there’s mutual gain and there are very few enlightened exceptions (Buddha, Jesus etc.).

FC: Now we're getting into supernatural deities.

ESV: The above applies to distance problems as well. Humans, being wired to thrive for evolution purposes, think that what brings no return is unworthy of considering.

FC: Humans have habits in their behaviour but also in their thoughts too. I propose to you that your above assertion is nothing more more than a habit pattern of the mind, and can be changed. I mean people have been martyring themselves for millenia.

I tell there are people capable of selflessness, exemplifying with two well known historical persons (that lived, yet whose stories reached us with exaggerated feats added by people/apostles). In the bigger picture I tell there are people capable of martyring, but most are not. You break the sentences and reduce them to an absolute value so you can find a flaw and counter-argue.

I used the above mentioned technique^ to counter-argue with a damnably good teacher in rhetorics that I once had. It can make a good impression to observers, but in the end I learned that a debate is not about countering what a person says, but rather about laying somewhere in the middle of the room your experiences. Each lays their own and in the end we have a pile. We leave the room richer, with a pile that contains everyone’s view of reality. We do this instead of choosing a view above all others because no one is truly right and objective. We can only see thing as we are, based on our subjective views and experiences.

Apologies if I sound odd in some sentences, I translated the words mot-à-mot/the same order they came in my language.

[GearHeaded]

What do you think about people who are okay with something bad happening so long as:
A) It happened very far away
or
B) It happened a very long time ago

So for example, I think most Americans or Europeans would be against stopping an 8-year-old child going to school so that the child can do labour for their business all day.

But if the bad thing is happening 7,000 miles away, for example in China, then they don't mind. It isn't difficult to find an American or European who is happy to buy a cheap product at their local supermarket -- a product which is so cheap because people are being exploited a few thousand miles away.

So are bad things okay so long as they happened far away or a long time ago?

we are all universally connected.. time, space, matter, etc.. does not really separate us. wither something happened 700 years ago or something happens 7000 miles away , its all the same. evil done upon US as humanity is done upon us all because we are all essentially one, all one spirit made in the image of God, experiencing life in this plain of momentary existence . its all one global experience of humanity not separated by space or time.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Sick of typing so recording audio

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11iz...w?usp=drivesdk

[GearHeaded]

Sick of typing so recording audio

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11iz...w?usp=drivesdk

what nationality are you.. your accent sounds familiar

[Fluidic Kimbo]

what nationality are you.. your accent sounds familiar

What you are hearing there is the bastardization of a person growing up in the South of Ireland and then spending 5 years in the North. I sound very different if I spend a weekend in the South and chat to an old school friend (or if I have a few beers I instantly revert).

[Fluidic Kimbo]

My former selves are all tucked inside me somewhere ( along with all their accents)

[GearHeaded]

ok yeah sounded familiar , I don't know why exactly

you are a 'thinker'.. you think about things beyond things that are merely in front of you. thats a good trait to have

[Fluidic Kimbo]

ok yeah sounded familiar , I don't know why exactly

you are a 'thinker'.. you think about things beyond things that are merely in front of you. thats a good trait to have

It turns a lot of people into addicts though. Constant analysis and rehashing isn't good for the human mind.It wasn't until my twenties that I realised how important it is to not think. that's where meditation comes in for me and developing my ability to not think.

[GearHeaded]

It turns a lot of people into addicts though. Constant analysis and rehashing isn't good for the human mind.It wasn't until my twenties that I realised how important it is to not think. that's where meditation comes in for me and developing my ability to not think.

meditation is NOT, in my opinion. the ability NOT to think,, its the ability to think clearly , FREE FROM FEAR. free from the past or the future (both of which don't exist). meditation is thinking free from fear, Freedom from the past ghosts, freedom from future hope

[GearHeaded]

meditation is not free from thinking , its freedom from fear

[Fluidic Kimbo]

I think that if you spend 20 minutes to an hour per day not thinking, then that gives you the ability to spend the rest of the day thinking clearly and not weighed down by constant background noise from the over-analysis and over-evaluation of decades worth of bullshit floating around your head. Unfortunately we can't do colonic irrigation on our mind to get all that shit out of there, but at the very least we can refrain from allocating it any air time. I think we need to retain all that crap in there to keep us brave and dignified, but I don't think we have to stare and it and point out its every feature.

[sv.elia]

Sick of typing so recording audio

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11iz...w?usp=drivesdk

I’m really dumb when oral comprehension is concerned and I watch my movies with English subtitles on. Your gorgeous accent is wasted on me. I propose we leave the argument where it is.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

I’m really dumb when oral comprehension is concerned and I watch my movies with English subtitles on. Your gorgeous accent is wasted on me. I propose we leave the argument where it is.

I used a speech-to-text engine and then I corrected the handful of little mistakes in it. (I might record the next one in my make-believe American accent). Here is the transcription:

So you say that the debate should be about everybody dispensing their views, opinions, findings in the center of the room, rather than it being a case of constantly trying to come up with a rebuttal or a counter-argument to what somebody else says if you do not agree with what they say... Emm... I think -- and this is for any person that's partaking in the debate or whatever discussion -- is that if a person thinks that they are right and, not only that, if they've considered the other people's arguments and taken into account their own personal past experience, if they judge... if they think that the other person's arguments are inaccurate, are incorrect or wrong, then I think that's when people just say. . . they just try to argue their point more, and say look this is what I believe and this is why I think it's right, I don't believe what you're saying, I don't think what you're saying is right, I mean I know there are some very, I suppose, enlightening situations or enlightening discussions where, y'know, you could get four different insightful opinions which are laid in the middle of the room ... I'm not saying that that doesn't happen but, I dunno, some discussions some debates, if a person thinks that they're right and if the other people in the room aren't convincing them of otherwise, then I suppose it's just... the person continues to argue their point more elaborately, more strongly, and tries to pick apart, tries to dismantle the other arguments that are being put forward in the room -- which I think is just healthy human debate. That's, y'know, I think that's how discussions, debates, happen and I don't think there's anything wrong with having a sharp rebuttal really trying to pick small pieces out of another person's argument or viewpoint or... yeah... so... one second, ah look I might record another one