Post your random thoughts.

How to provide for your retirement:

1. Build a time machine.
2. Begin investing five years before you were born.
3. Make monthly investments going forward from that point, increasing according to your income.
4. Retire at 70.
5. Die at 73.

Well, the ghosts and vampires in my stories actually aren't undead. "Undead" is kind of negative. What they have is life, but not as we know it.

Why did the Satanist -thread get locked? How did things unfold?

Which thread would that be?

edited 23rd Aug '16 11:40:52 AM by Ultimatum

This one. It apparently veered off the topic, though I'm not sure how. Sure, I can read the whole thread through myself, but I seem to have too little time these days, traveling around meeting people and stuff. Would anyone be able to give me a clearer summary of what happened there?

Such a pity, looked like an interesting thread.

edited 23rd Aug '16 11:50:36 AM by MerryMikael

You could ask someone to reopen it

Providing you have some material to add

Not now, at least.

Just curious, was it a moment's development or did it unfold over a longer period of time?

Or perhaps that question could be generalized. At what point do mods here decide when some thread veers too far?

Depends on the kinds of reports they get,plus other stuff like official policy

Ask The Tropers is where you want to ask that sort of question

Also,I still think Tell The Tropers would be better

edited 23rd Aug '16 12:04:22 PM by Ultimatum

T Hank you, Ultimatum. I posted my question.

Now I spend so little time here that I may have missed some things that seem so apparent to others, but please don't mind that.

@ Merry Mikael, if I recall the primary contributor was banned for posting something that skirted uncomfortably close to hate speech against religions they disagreed with and then the thread itself became sorta redundant with the general religion thread in the OTC subforums encompassing most of the stuff being discussed.

edited 23rd Aug '16 12:42:49 PM by carbon-mantis

Thanks for a clear summary.

Yup, hate speech can be against any religion and under the pretext of any religion and it's a different thing from legitimate, rational, thoughtful criticism.

Do you agree?

o.o I don't understand a word, but it looks good.

A random "philosophical" thought that I think has practical implications:

Do you guys(and ladies, too, of course of course) think thought can have merit regardless of who says it?

Eh, no I can't really say that. Nothing exists free from context. Not to immediately jump to Hitler but you can find lots of seemingly intelligent and outright inspirational and profound quotes from him.

But of course, looking at those quotes in context really takes all of that away. Statements about unity and personal empowerment and community suddenly look much different.

No thought or statement or anything exists independent of anything. Nothing exists in a vacuum and you can't treat anything like it does.

edited 24th Aug '16 4:41:49 AM by LeGarcon

Here's a random question from my religion class: What does it mean to be a human being?

@ Star Bee: I think we have it in us to be both constructive and destructive. Even acts that are called inhuman come from our basic biological wiring, even if it requires certain kinds of circumstances and though some of them require more premeditation and lack of mental blocks.

To be human being, in my opinion, is being able to relate to other human beings on mutually open, honest, trusting, respectful and empathetic basis.

@ Le Garcon: Do you believe a thought could be taken out of the context that gives such sinister undertones(like in Hitler's case) and put into the new context that allows it to flourish it practically into its rights?

edited 24th Aug '16 7:06:22 AM by MerryMikael

No, I believe it's fundamentally dishonest to try and remove things from their context. It takes away all their weight and significance.

If someone really did that, with Hitler's ideology, for instance, then I agree it would be dishonest.

Sure there were parts in Hitler's ideology waiting to be put into practice that poisoned the parts sounding good.

If someone exploits virtuous-sounding things in rhetoric, I can imagine the value of those virtues diminishing in people's minds. Things like "personal empowerment", "unity" and "community" can start sounding less and less like things that could actually be lived by.

Am I getting it?

No, you're overthinking it.

Basically sound bites and quotes are bullshit without their original context. I can make Hitler sound like an amazing and inspirational motivator if I took his words out of context.

So don't ever do that. Context and precedent is everything.

But aren't there people, who actually do live virtues like mentioned without taking them out of context from Hitler's or anyone else's ideology?

I mean, actually living them must be different than someone exploiting the words in rhetoric.

Or can no one live by any virtue, because someone else somewhere has put good-sounding words together?

edited 24th Aug '16 7:37:21 AM by MerryMikael

You're still way overthinking it. Just remember where certain attitudes and beliefs come from is all.

When you're looking at quotes and philosophies and dogmas and so on just remember the context they were formed in.

edited 24th Aug '16 7:41:36 AM by LeGarcon

Looks like we're talking about two different things.

Yes, I can agree: Quotes can be out of context. Someone, who talks things about so-and-so may not actually live them or have lived them.

Or do you still think I'm overthinking it?

Read my previous post over more carefully, please, and don't dismiss it as overthinking.

edited 24th Aug '16 7:54:17 AM by MerryMikael

The original question is whether or not thoughts can have merit regardless of who said the words and I say no. The person who said it and the context they said in defines the entire meaning of it.

So you can't divorce things from their context.

There's nothing deeper than that.

Yup, Le Garcon, if someone talked about empathy who really wasn't the person to talk about it, then empathy would still be a real thing shown by people towards others. Also further answering Star Bee's question.

Empathy would still exist in reality. That wouldn't be taking things out of context.

edited 24th Aug '16 8:21:51 AM by MerryMikael

christ,,,, I love drawception