Because it makes no sense.How does this get 30 views, 0 votes, and a 1 star rating?
Removed content seldom makes sense.Because it makes no sense.
I have to say this is rather disappointing. It implies people can only read for context and not for structure. What the topic was isn't really relevant. The tone still comes across.
The quote comes from another political forum, so I'd rather not link it. That said, the topic at hand was cultural imperialism. We were discussing where the line is drawn on aggression and why freedom of speech is tolerated. Freedom of speech is supposedly tolerated because while it is ever so marginally aggressive, the overwhelming majority of society is rugged enough to deal with it.
Those who are sensitive are condemned for the sake of letting things happen. Besides, the sensitive can't stand up for themselves anyway, so nobody sees a reason to care.
That's just life.
In referring to survival rate, this libertarian was talking about how considerate people who refrain from public communication become extinct.
Likewise, in referring to projects, he was talking about how society might sacrifice the long term in refusing to accommodate/assimilate the sensitive, but how that long term sacrifice doesn't mean inconsiderate people can't live for the moment in ignoring the sensitive.
Frankly, I didn't find this pragmatism to be libertarian at all because it implies that boundaries can be violated if society doesn't care about them being too weak. It begs the question on the non-aggression principle.
Either you're saying something so far above me that it's blowing through my ears like the breeze or it's disjointed nonsense. Can you put this in layman terms or extrapolate the conclusion?
How does this get 30 views, 0 votes, and a 1 star rating?
Define: violence.
The only difference between having a rock thrown at you versus having air molecules vibrated against your eardrums is one is a lot weaker than the other.
Furthermore, sensitive people can't help but interpret every sound they hear. These people are condemned into a society of distraction where they're never entitled to freedom of association because their peace of mind is always violated.
The same thing can apply to sight, smell, or touch. People don't consent to be stimulated, so even free speech can be interpreted as aggression.
Alright I'll give that some credence.
Unfortunately, I've actually become over sensitive to certain harsh realities of everyday life, like the slaughter of animals for food, people physically and mentally suffering, the losses we all anguish over. I have to live with the bombardment of these certainties everyday and still find purpose and joy in daily living because "that's life". There is a methodology that allows some peace for those who are over sensitive to aggressive speech. "Keep it simple" and "focus on the positive" are the one, two punch for a complicated mind that finds the free activity of life and others over stimulating. There will always be effort in life for as long as we strive to exist. People must be allowed the freedom to expand and grow beyond our ignorance, such is the very nature of the universe. You can become a monk at some distant monastery to contemplate the meaning of stillness or dirt, BORING.
I would rather look for solutions rather than dwelling on the endless possibilities, which is "Non Gradus Anus Rodentum".
Two things.
One, it doesn't make much sense to encourage problem solving while encouraging a simple take on life.
Two, the real question is about who's to define which problems people can solve. An insensitive take on stimulation disallows people from solving more sensitive problems unless they're insulated by security, but why must people afford insulation in order to solve what they want?
How can people be allowed to throw paint around and obligate others to build fences to prevent from being splashed? Throwing paint requires rational thought, yet throwing paint onto someone else would inhibit another's rational thought. Furthermore, demanding that others insulate themselves would culturally imperialize another's rational thought.
The same logic can be applied to light and sound since they also cross physical mediums.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?