Zen/Philosophy

[David.]

This one can be seen as uplifting, but its more scientifically accurate than anything. With any decision, behavior, or happenstance, what may be immediate and apparently good (or bad) has the potential to shift to bad to good.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX0OARBqBp0&feature=youtu.be

 

[The Oi]

Fuck off.

 

[PIP]

Was hoping this was a video on Butterflies pooping !

 

[RuanuLaw]

This one can be seen as uplifting, but its more scientifically accurate than anything. With any decision, behavior, or happenstance, what may be immediate and apparently good (or bad) has the potential to shift to bad to good.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX0OARBqBp0&feature=youtu.be

Maybe I'm not understanding this, but essentially it is saying that for example, if your child dies, MAYBE its misfortune? lol

I assume I'm being over exaggerating in the above example, but to keep that attitude at all times doesn't seem very healthy.

 

[David.]

Maybe I'm not understanding this, but essentially it is saying that for example, if your child dies, MAYBE its misfortune? lol

I assume I'm being over exaggerating in the above example, but to keep that attitude at all times doesn't seem very healthy.

well, sure. it could be saying that.

its a philosophical conversation, and an encouragement that everything needs to be kept in perspective. Situations and their consequences arent static.

ill give another example. When I was in N.Anonymous, there was a guy who attempted to enlist in the navy. He was honest in his application and admitted he had an issue with drugs. They denied his enlistment.

Rather than joining the millitary, he found other work where he met his first wife. Heartbreak lead to complete fulfillment.

And then they got divorced.

And then he remarried. This woman wanted his children, and gave him his daughter.


its kind of like that moment when you come to a point that youre entirely happy..someone asks you "would you have done anything differentlly? do you regret anything?' and you say no, because if anything had happened any other way, I wouldnt be where I am today.


situations that are awful can lead to circumstance that wouldnt be possible if the initial tragedy hadn't transpired. Everyone wakes up and forgets about yesterday; they only see today as today. But if you trace back, you'll see terrible things had to have happened to provide you with most of your positive assets today, and without them, you wouldn't have the positives.

 

[David.]

Your enemies are great, because they'll tell you exactly what you need to fix as honestly and quickly as they can.

 

[David.]

Mentally handicapped and the capacity to legally consent to sex-

Children can be enthusiatstic to sex, but under law, they are deemed not to be sufficiently emotionally or mentally developed to consent. You could make parallels here.

Anyone wanna touch it?

 

[gourimoko]

Mentally handicapped and the capacity to legally consent to sex-

Children can be enthusiatstic to sex, but under law, they are deemed not to be sufficiently emotionally or mentally developed to consent. You could make parallels here.

Anyone wanna touch it?

Sure.

We as society have deemed "children," in a sexual context, as people under 16 in most states (some have this at 18), even though historically that was much younger, and with good reason. What's interesting is that many of these states have laws allowing children to marry as young as 14.

Mentally handicapped people may or may not be capable of consenting to sex. A person could be convicted of raping a grown individual who was somehow mentally handicapped. It would largely depend on the context and who the aggrieved party was and how that was represented to a jury of their peers.

It's a legal question more so than an ethical one.

If you want to evaluate the question ethically; then it becomes one of incomplete information. That is to say, how does the person know the handicapped individual is truly consenting? If this cannot be known, then there it is, by definition, of questionable ethics. If one asserts it is known, then it may be ethical for them, but not universally -- which, again, should likely be considered as well.

 

[David.]

"Habits start as cobwebs and ripen into chains"

 

[DrunkenBuckeye]

Mentally handicapped and the capacity to legally consent to sex-

Children can be enthusiatstic to sex, but under law, they are deemed not to be sufficiently emotionally or mentally developed to consent. You could make parallels here.

Anyone wanna touch it?

I'd like to be inside The Oi if anyone can prove the law would allow.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Anyone wanna touch it?

 

[David.]

"it's not if you win or lose, but how you play the game.

But what does this mean? It means, think of life as a series of games. To win is to behave in a fashion that results in your invitation to compete and win the most games possible.

Tested on rats, in competition, the smaller rat has to win 30% of the time against a larger rat for the smaller rat to agree to play again, and the smaller rat has to be the one to initiate the game.

If you bulldozer too many rats too many times, there are no more games to play. You get no cheese. So get along with each other.

Life is a series of competitions with cooperation insinuated into them. We are all constantly competing and simultaneously cooperating. Establishing these things as a dichotomy is death.

No cheese for you. "

-Jordan Peterson, paraphrased

 

[David.]

There is a significant distinction between being morally sufficient and naive and sheltered.

Someone sheltered from temptation isn't necessarily good, they simply havent the burden of temptation to overcome.

That isn't to say there aren't truly moral people, there are. But its imperative to recognize the distinction.