Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's why the nanny state needs to butt out of people's lives.
Authoritarians are definitely a threat and danger to one's existence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why doesn't everyone just be honest
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Authoritarians are definitely a threat and danger to one's existence.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
When one swallows unsupported rhetoric hook line and sinker it is rather hard to be honest..
Both parties tell lies at times. And the further from the center the bigger and more obvious the lies are. The question is why are you so easily fooled into believing them?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Because like I stated so many times in the past.
Democrats lead with the most oppressive and least free states in the entire nation.
I actually live in one of them.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am unaware of any states, conservative or liberal, that has a "nanny state".
Brian2
Veteran Member
You can't say that. If it is a matter of choice that means that atheism is a belief.
There's a saying that goes "we can disagree on how best to feed the homeless but not that the homeless should be fed."
Atheist, Christian, one of many myriad other religions, conservative, democrat, I am wiling to compromise and negotiate with all to a line of values that I won't cross. I imagine they have similar such lines. So after a certain point there's no further point in arguing who needs to cross the line.
Atheist, Christian, one of many myriad other religions, conservative, democrat, I am wiling to compromise and negotiate with all to a line of values that I won't cross. I imagine they have similar such lines. So after a certain point there's no further point in arguing who needs to cross the line.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
if that was true you could claim that.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
It is not a compromise, but a stumble which made them realize it. A stumble is the best way of learning. So, let people stumble and find the truth. We have a saying that there are three kinds of people. One, who learn by the experience of others, two, who learn by their own experience, and three, who do not learn even by their own experience.
What we are doing is we have decided not to kill or shut-up people that we disagree with. This is how it works. We show mercy, and we work for a long term solution. We somehow suppress jealousies, paranoia, personality disorders, aggression. This is where the courts and the rules come into play. The courts grant partial vengeance only. The rules lay down allowable behavior. The citizen does their duty. The results is a pretty great place to live in and an ally with other species and peace between humans. Its pretty decent compared to the past where we have tried to put our trust in nobility and in lineage. This is a step up from that, because we (actually not we but some smart ancestors) put trust into autonomy. They decided that the average person just wanted to be left alone, and they were right.
You take laziness, one of the negatives, and you turn it into a positive. You use it as part of your system. Most people just can't be bothered, and you can leverage that into a working system.
Yes well education does help
I have no problem with atheists, Christians, Democrats or Republicans. We're all just people making our way in the world with the little time we have,
So in the spirit of this thread, can I ask if you and I agree on the following, in general I mean? Despite being assumed political opposites. (Maybe moreso the gap between our respective cultures rather than our politics lol.)
Legalised abortion. Since that is down to choice, regardless of our own personal beliefs.
Legalised drugs, because the government shouldn’t tell you what you can or can’t consume. We can ingest what we damn well please, as long as we don’t hurt others.
And the lack of legalisation just helps drug dealers kill folks needlessly.
(And remember Alcohol is considered a drug, a depressant to be specific. Indeed prohibition didn’t exactly help folks.)
I’m sure agreements can be reached on some “big name” issues across groups, even if compromises need to be reached at the same time.
But lately I’ve seen a growing lack of wanting to reach out, from all political sides.
That is a little disconcerting, tbh
Though maybe that’s just me lol
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
Me? I don't hate people even when they're
mean and surly and try to cheat at poker.
I figure that's just the human material, and
he who finds in it cause for anger and dismay
is just a fool for expecting different.
Audie
Veteran Member
"As long as" doesn't work well.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
There is truly good and there is truly evil, there can be no compromise.
I hate mean people.
One of their tricks is to conflate honesty with candor.
They'll insult & abuse...with the excuse "It's true!".
We needn't say everything we feel.
So the stupid dishonest nasty unethical people I deal
with here every day are spared my opinion of them.
Well, I've always heard that honesty is the best policy, so I agree that people should be honest about their beliefs and how they came by them.
I think a lot of it depends on the context of the situation, whether it's an informal or a formal setting. Message boards and social media are informal settings. They are not courtrooms, they're not classrooms, they're not scientific laboratories, they're not academic symposiums, they're not legislative chambers, and they're not churches or holy ground. A formal debate has a certain structure and rules. Moreover, form is often just as important as content.
Message boards, by design, tend to be a bit less formal and less structured. That's what some people seem to miss.
In an academic setting, academic honesty is what's important, not necessarily personal honesty. The idea being that people feel compelled to demonstrate they reached their conclusions/beliefs through rigorous scientific examination and study and that their own personal feelings or biases had nothing to do with their conclusion. It's a common trope where people say "this isn't personal, it's strictly business," and this is where some people may question one's honesty.
This can often lead to a popular sporting event one might see on social media or message boards, where people might goad and question someone about their beliefs, insisting that their motives are not objective or academically-oriented at all, that it must be due to some deep, dark personal motivation that one is refusing to admit. Or it might be due to ignorance, mental illness, stupidity, brainwashing, or any number of other possible causes.
To me, in informal settings, it's more like people having a conversation in a bar - or two old men jawing on a park bench. There's no need for the kind of stiff formality which might be more appropriate in an academic forum or a court of law.
I would wager that many personal beliefs are rooted more in value judgments where there may not be any definitive, scientifically correct or incorrect answer. Trouble is, most people don't seem willing to admit that, and that's where most public discussions tend to go downhill very quickly. I think this is what contributes to perceptions of dishonesty which you might be sensing.
It also seems to lead to misconceptions on the part of those who think that someone having the "wrong" beliefs must mean that they're not educated enough or they lack critical thinking skills or some other intellectual defect. Or it might be a moral defect, though that's more in the realm of value judgments where people can be a bit more cagey and vague.
If people have certain beliefs or ideals or values, there must be a reason for it - something that's a part of their inner being and internal psychology, which most people are reluctant to fully reveal in public or semi-public settings. So, they might put on a mask and act in a certain way that might seem like they're not telling the full story about themselves and why they believe what they believe. Thus, they might appear like they're not being completely honest and open.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
My partner often tells me I’m a dishonest person. She means emotionally, I think. But when people talk about emotions, or behave emotionally, I’m just confused by it all. Probably because I’m English, and male, and very old fashioned. I believe in love though; not so much the Mills and Boone soppy romantic kind, though that’s alright in it’s place. I believe in the healing power of indiscriminate, universal love. God’s love for us, working in us and through us.
What do you mean?
Specifically?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Problem is that reality thingy.
It's not us us, it is those in power who will not stop doing all they are doing and arguably giving people like you and me and all the others plenty of fodder for the proverbial cannon to shoot at.
All we do here at RF is take a side and heartedly bop each others heads over it with the knowledge that none of it will guide the true hands of power in any due course of direction.
Why we ourselves do it nonetheless? I dunno.
Maybe it's because in spite of some suggested concessions and compromise, the core itself remains that require taking a side and to see the reactions by doing so, and play the chess game of debate as we watch the real movers and shakers build and destroy at their behest and whims.