Composers' Forum

Music Composers Unite!

Can you hear the music in this?

http://billionsinchange.com/film

Views: 2500

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

....... there is a religious figure in the UK (maybe he's even a bishop in the Anglican Church) who says poor people have not only the right, but the obligation to shoplift in the big chain stores, because these megacorporations are evil, they have stolen from the people and they exploit their workers.

O-ster, why would Roger want to know this? How is it relevant to anything going on here?

Why would you introduce such a thing into the conversation?, when the guy is obviously a

baffoon. Apparently anyone can get a title and be part of the religious club. Is he a friend of

yours?

I'm not a religious man, but I do know the difference between the Old Testament and the New.

Your friend obviously doesn't.     ( key word- grace)

Here's a challenge for you; in less than 111 words, can you explain your intent and point?  RS

Fred, If shoplifters lift the energy drinks that are, IMHO overpriced, wouldn't that

reduce the profit margin of the company, which would then reduce the money

available to use to help those poor abused shoplifters improve their own life 'situation'?

In the end, they are only robbing themselves.   now, and maybe Dave can verify, that's ironic.  RS
 
Fredrick zinos said:

Shoplifters will be prosecuted for stealing. Bankers won't. Bankers own at least some portion of government and government writes laws about which activities  are crimes. The Shoplifter's ox gets gored, the ox of the banker gets to prance, snort, paw the ground and go merrily on his way.

 

 

Hello Fredrick, Peter, Roger and all participants in this thread.  I would like here simply to reply to several points made by Fredrick.  (Roger, I will reply to your question a bit later).

 

I wonder, Fredrick, if you could make a decision not to make racist, ethnocentric or Islamophobic remarks, as you appear to have done in a recent post.  I think it would benefit the forum if people would try to work against bigotry, prejudice and extreme cultural bias.  See my thoughts on your specific statement below, under point (2).  

 

 

You say, Fredrick,

 

"OO you have all of the insight of one raised in a religious cult."

 

I am afraid you have once again failed the challenge. Might we see if you can go one or two days without using ad hominem arguments, or personal attacks?

 

Notice, I am going to address arguments, specific words and their implications.  You, on the other hand, make a broad generalization, in the above statement, about a person.  Each time you do that, you undermine your position and make your argument weaker.  It says nothing about your character, as far as anyone can tell.  But I think you know that ad hominem attacks are by their very nature fallacious, and have no weight whatsoever for rational people.  I believe you understand some of the rudiments of logic, and know how to refrain from making poor choices with regard to your rhetorical strategy.

 

Now, it's interesting to me that you bring up religion, because I have made some points about your specific use of statements that resemble "faith propositions"  (not as an attack on your character, but as part of a request that you clarify your reasoning).   You can ask others to clarify their reasoning as well, rather than personally attacking them.  I think that would make your position much stronger in this particular discussion.

 

So, as I say, it is interesting that you do bring up religion, but not in relation to your own ostensible use of faith propositions (dogmatic and general statements, premises, postulates or axioms, that remain unproven, but which are insisted upon even in spite of evidence to the contrary).  Your approach appears to be a bit of a diversion.

 

However, let's address your ad hominem, because it does contain some thinking tenuously related to the issue of faith propositions, and the nature of religious thinking in general, or dogmatic thinking.  I speak of thinking of the kind which you recently seem to have taken up as a means of making your points. Let's look carefully at some of your statements, which are perhaps made somewhat haphazardly and without any basis. 

 

(1)  "OO you have all of the insight of one raised in a religious cult."

 

I notice you don't say, "OO, you appear to have all the insight ... " or "OO, you seem to have all the insight ..." etc.  This particular statement of yours could itself probably be qualified as dogmatic, or cultish, or simply a "faith proposition," of the type one might make if one were a member of a cult trying to undercut a person in another cult.  So perhaps you see yourself as St. Augustine arguing against Pelagius or Arius, in order to establish your own personal orthodoxy with regard to some point or other.   

 

I don't want this to be too personal, but can you tell me whether you were raised in a cult or not?  I was not, nor have a ever been a member of any cult, sectarian organization, Church, Mosque, Synagogue or Temple (Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist).  Perhaps you were raised in a household where the cult of Christianity was practiced.  Perhaps you were raised a Catholic.  Catholicism can theoretically be qualified as a cult, though admittedly it would be a large one.  Maybe you can tell me what you mean by cult, since the term has not been carefully defined.  Since you think how we were raised (how we were conditioned) determines how we argue, or who we are, or what our behaviors might be, then you might have the courtesy of telling us whether you were "raised in a cult."

 

2.  "Let me guess  Urantia? The  Muslim mumbo jumbo, or maybe you're a Mormon. Makes no difference they are all equally delusional and what a magnificent representative you are."

 

If by "delusional" you mean "maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts ..." I think that adjective might better apply to the attitude you have (perhaps humorously) adopted when stating and insisting on propositions which are outright false or unsustainable. Does that seem to you an unfair statement? It might be a temporary delusion on your part (or some other slip in your thinking) that allows you to guess something about me personally, and make a wrong guess each time. 

 

I had never even read any Muslim literature until I was twenty five years old.  I certain was not "raised" in a Muslim cult.  The Koran was in our house, which had a fairly good library, but I never read it during my youth.  As an aside, I with to remark:  Your use of the phrase  "Muslim mumbo jumbo" is a bit troubling, and might be considered ethnocentric or Islamophobic.  Perhaps you could clarify this somewhat.  It's not because I am a Muslim, but because I have lived amongst Muslims (in Turkey) and because I consider them to be human beings worthy of respect, that I ask you to refrain from making what can easily be seen as a biased or prejudiced remark against a group of people.  

 

 

I never even met a Mormon in my life, until my wife and I befriended a Mormon missionary in Colombia. I was not particularly attracted to that belief system.  Nor had I encountered the Urantia Papers until my fourth year in college.  I could list dozens of books, which I found interesting, and which influenced my thinking about philosophical and spiritual matters, including:  Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Suzuki's the Essentials of Zen Buddhism, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, Works in the Vedanta Tradition, the Tao te Ching, works by Zhuang Tse, Confucius' Analects, Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Autobiography of a Yogi, Augustine's City of God, Thomas Merton's works, Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov, Tolstoy's War and Peace, works by Richard Alpert, Timothy Leary and writings by many so-called "New Age" authors, that caught my attention, and from which I have gained some insight, to a lesser or greater degree. Perhaps you could tell what works influenced you.  I do not dogmatically adhere to the beliefs contained in any single work, or religious or spiritual or philosophical system (as you seem to want to adhere to your "faith propositions.")  Nor was I raised in a household where that was the case. 

 

I hope you will return the courtesy and inform the forum what "cult" you might have been raised in, or not raised in, but influenced by. 

 

(3)  You ask,

 

"Is that you and your imaginary friends all wearing your ISIS invisibility cloaks?" 

 

The question is incomprehensible to me.  Perhaps you could flesh it out.  I have read much of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and I am somewhat familiar with the ancient cults of Isis and Osiris, but I do not subscribe to many of their precepts.

 

I did say, "we may ask in a fairly pointed fashion: do you even know what you genuinely believe at this point?"

 

And you, in return, asked me, Who is this "we" ... ?

 

I meant by "we," members of this forum.  My statement was, "we" may ask what you genuinely believe, because there appear to be contradictions in what you have put forward recently.  Alleged sympathy for the workers is displayed at the same time as antipathy appears also to be displayed, antipathy for the common man, for workers, and for a meaningful concept of workers' rights. Maybe you are joking and exaggerating. Perhaps not. Therefore I say, "we may ask what you genuinely believe,"  which is a figure of speech suggesting anyone may ask.  You can answer or not answer, as you see fit.

 

(4)  You went on, and made numerous additional personal attacks, which can easily be dismissed as lapses into non-sequiturs, red herrings and ad hominems of various sorts.  Again, do you engage in such attempts at tarring simply because you wish to avoid certain questions under discussion at this time?  Only you can tell the forum what your purpose is.  You do speak of me (personally, I might add), without any real direct knowledge of me.  You speak of me as someone "who knows far less about every subject known to man, than anyone I've met on this planet."

 

Given that we have never "met" on this planet, or on any other, that has to be considered a strange and very odd statement.  I suggest that making hard judgments about people based on exposure to their "internet personas" on one forum may be hazardous to your total personality [conceived of as a unity of conscious, unconscious, ego, super-conscious, and id (if we are speaking in Freudian/Jungian) terms].   By that I simply mean, you may fall into the trap of making an erroneous judgment.  Your epistemology might become just a bit skewed.  But I may indeed know less, actually far less, about every subject known to man (and to beasts and to angels) than anyone you have met on this planet.  I have said before, I admired Socrates, who said, "I know nothing, and I know that I know nothing."  For saying that, and making similar statements, and for questioning the knowledge of others, people put him to death.  I hope you do not bear that kind of animosity towards anyone on this forum, or in the world at large.   

 

You also spoke of "self assumed omniscience," but it was not I who claimed to have "all knowledge."  In fact, it was you who said, you were "totally fair," making that assertion in an absolute way, with no qualifiers; so I am still waiting for you to clarify your position, and state how you might prove that God exists, and that you are in fact God, as your stance directly or indirectly appears to imply.

 

(5)  You ended your post saying, "But I don't actually hate you OO. If I did, I would insult you."

 

I am glad you have not given into hatred.  I hope you do not hate anyone.  But I wonder about this last statement. It indicates you would try to insult a person if you did hate them.  Do you think insulting a person is good and logical strategy, generally speaking?  Do you prefer attempting to insult people (whether you hate them or not) to actually replying to logical points made by others?  Some of your recent remarks would tend to indicate that possibly you do.

 

If you concede arguments, as you appear to have done recently, by wasting your time in the construction of various ad hominems, then will that make your position at all clearer to people?

 

I will conclude, Fredrick, simply by reminding you to please avoid making remarks which can easily be considered ethnocentric, racist or Islamophobic, and therefore outside the bounds of civilized discourse.  And I would challenge you, once more, to try to refrain, for a period of at least 48 hours, from making ad hominem attacks against anyone here.  It would benefit you, as well as raise the level of discourse on this thread.

 

 

 

Greetings Roger,

 

You said,

 

"O-ster, why would Roger want to know this?"

 

I had said,

 

"Roger may want to know that there is a religious figure in the UK (maybe he's even a bishop in the Anglican Church) who says poor people have not only the right, but the obligation to shoplift in the big chain stores, because these megacorporations are evil, they have stolen from the people and they exploit their workers."

 

Roger, I said, you MAY want to know about it.  Perhaps you don't want to know about it. I will explain why you may have possibly wanted to know about it, in what follows.

 

"How is it relevant to anything going on here?"

 

With all do respect, and in a spirit of humor, I ask, "how is anything that has been said, almost from the beginning, "relevant here?"  But there is no need to answer this question.  This thread has simply become a "free-for-all," allowing people to bring up any issue that they see fit to bring up.  That's not a criticism, but simply an observation about the wide ranging nature of the discussion. 

 

 

"Why would you introduce such a thing into the conversation?"

 

That's a perfectly good question.  An excellent one, in fact.  I have to stop typing just now, so I will answer it a bit later.  (If you don't mind).

 

 

Susan, reading back through some of this 'saga', I was reminded, by your reply,

of the face value sentiment and the real value of the original post.  Thank you.

I also saw it as inspiring and would add, hopeful.   RS
 
Susan Partlan said:

Inspiring film Roger. Thank you for posting.

Thank you, Fredrick, for this recent post.  I think in some ways, it could be considered unsatisfactory, however.  The comparison you make appears to me to based on flawed analogical thinking.

 

You said,

 

"I think slavery is debased, immoral, and obscene."

 

First, an related question.  Do you genuinely think slavery is debased, immoral or obscene? It may be the case that you may believe in wage slavery.

 

What is a wage slave?

 

"a person who works for a wage, especially with total and immediate dependency on the income derived from such labor."

 

So you can tell me whether you disbelieve believe in wage slavery, as an acceptable institution under capitalism.   Do you disbelieve in all forms of slavery, or just those which have been traditional prior to the 1800's.

 

Of course, it may be different to say "I think slavery is debased" and "I think slaves are debased," depending upon what you mean by "debased.

 

There might not be much difference between saying "Islam is debased," and "Muslims are debased."  Slavery is, and has been fairly uniform in being "the ownership of one person by another," which is condemnable from every angle.

 

Islam, on the other hand, is a very wide ranging set of belief systems and practices.   It actually involved the freedom of Blacks and members of other races from slavery, in numerous cases and situations (as when Mohammed secured the freedom of Bilal, a black slave held by Arab pagans in the city of Mecca, who later became one of first four close associates of "the prophet." ).

 

Is your position, Fredrick, that all (or most Muslims) are prone to "mumbo jumbo" and that you are not?  Your set of faith propositions, affirmed so recently, could be seen as no more or less absurd than some of those that Muslims might embrace.  Don't you agree, if not overtly, then at least, tacitly?

 

Please set the record straight, on whether any of your recent statements about Islam or Muslims were "Islamophobic," in this sense:

 

reflecting "an intense dislike or fear of Islam."  (Oxford English dictionary).

 

You might also clarify why your particular beliefs should not be considered as "faith propositions," or as "mumbo jumbo," as well as any other unsubstantiated propositions that form part of a creed.

 

A word or two on "wage slavery" might also be welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Why thank you OO. I consider getting an "unsatisfactory" (as though you were in a position to give out grades) to be high praise indeed."

 

 

 

I think you misunderstood.   I did not mean "unsatisfactory" in any "grade"  sense.  I meant, according to your own standard, which requires statements and views to have logical consistency.

 

Did you think your analogy was a satisfactory one?    

 

Or was this reply of yours a way of avoiding the question about those statements you made which could be considered ethnocentric or Islamophobic?

 

Fred, there was no 'middleman' in my little story.

The facts of the reality of the truth of the arguement

 in this situation only spoils the irony. :-}
 
Fredrick zinos said:

The way it works is that the retailer suffers the loss of shoplifting. The vendor of 5 hour energy and all other commodities in the store are generally not affected by "shrinkage." 

5 Hour Energy would not be adversely affected by consumer shoplifting, in fact they may benefit. The retailer will have to replace the stolen merchandise possibly resulting in an extra order for the vendor. 

 
roger stancill said:

....... there is a religious figure in the UK (maybe he's even a bishop in the Anglican Church) who says poor people have not only the right, but the obligation to shoplift in the big chain stores, because these megacorporations are evil, they have stolen from the people and they exploit their workers.

O-ster, why would Roger want to know this? How is it relevant to anything going on here?

Why would you introduce such a thing into the conversation?, when the guy is obviously a

baffoon. Apparently anyone can get a title and be part of the religious club. Is he a friend of

yours?

I'm not a religious man, but I do know the difference between the Old Testament and the New.

Your friend obviously doesn't.     ( key word- grace)

Here's a challenge for you; in less than 111 words, can you explain your intent and point?  RS

 

 

Roger,

 

You asked, earlier,

 

"Why would you introduce such a thing into the conversation?"

 

You mean, the minister?  The minister who said, it's morally acceptable to shoplift if you're poor, especially from big mega-corporate chain stores?

 

Others had mentioned shoplifting, so it just came to my mind.  I wondered, given your disapproval of the big banks, and of giant corporations, whether you would sympathize with what the fellow said.

 

" the guy is obviously a baffoon ... "

 

Are you saying, he is a baboon, or a buffoon?  Or is he both?

 

I like that word.  Baffoon.  But why is he one of those?  I was hoping you might agree with him. You are not going to side with the corporations again, are you? 

 

 

"Apparently anyone can get a title and be part of the religious club. Is he a friend of yours?"

 

Anyone can get a title? I didn't know that. How does one do that?   He's not a friend of mine; in fact I am not even sure I remember his name.  Tim something or other?  He is from Yorkshire, where I have some distant relatives, so maybe I should know him. 

 

 

"I'm not a religious man, but I do know the difference between the Old Testament and the New."

 

You may not be a religious man, but for all anyone knows, you are probably a fine upstanding moral, and ethical person, with true spiritual values (as opposed to someone who simply follows a creed). 

 

Your friend obviously doesn't. 

 

Doesn't know the difference between the Old and New Testament? I think he might.   He cited:

 

Chroniculus 7:23, and

 

Leviticles 23:7

 

Thou shalt never steal, unless you purloin from the rich corporations, formed under the covenant of limited liability, wherein the wage slave is subject to immediate termination at will, and the factory premises may be outsourced to nations which are signatories to all manner of abominable trade deals, such as the Treaty for the Free Trade Area of Mesopotamia, Assyria and the Euphrates Valley, and/or similar Economic Unions.  

 

 

Roger, you said,

 

Here's a challenge for you; in less than 111 words, can you explain your intent and point?

 

Yes, I can.

 

 

OO:  I am afraid you misunderstood.

 

Fz:  No OO. You misunderstand.

 

OO:  The standard of logical consistency is one you say you prefer.

 

Fz:  The standard of logical consistency is one you insist upon, and violate at every turn.

 

OO:  Please try to stay on topic.

 

Fz.  Please try to stay on topic.

 

OO:  I want you to explain your frequent use of faith propositions.

 

Fz:  I asked you a question recently: Who is the "we" you refer to in your convoluted and very humorous posts?

 

OO:  I asked you a question recently: Who is the "I" you refer to in your convoluted and very humorous posts?  It's not you, is it?

 

Fz:  I asked you politely yesterday to get your lithium dosage adjusted.

 

OO:  I think you might have been practicing psychiatric pharmacology without a license.   That's punishable by three years in a jail in Morocco, Tunisia, or Egypt.

 

Fz:  But Muslims are ...

 

OO:  You can't say that.   You know better.

 

Fz:  據他們說,他們有時,我們做不希望但如果你想,如果他們給我們,即使是從的人,當他們走的是從來沒有任何時候,但儘管是的。

 

OO:  My thoughts exactly.

 

 

 

 

I did answer line 8 already.  Scroll back to a previous post.

Now, please answer line 9.

Thank you (in advance).


Fredrick zinos said:

Please answer line 8

Ha Ha O O, that is kinda funny  and I agree, baffoon could be a useful word

in this day and age. It must have been a 'Floridian' slip... you know, like when you

have an idea of what you want to say, which in this case was 'primative thinking clown'.

BTW- don't bother looking up Floridian slip, I made that up too. It's a combination of

Freudian slip and a 'senior moment' ( there are a lot of old folks in Florida).

All this can be added to the fact that I jes cain't spel verry gud.

You on the other hand, don't seem to read very well.

You narrow the choice of the McD law suit down to two sides; the workers

and the corporations. I clearly stated and took the 'side' of personal responsibility,

regardless of what team the individual was playing on.

Here's something you may want to know... There are 1,365 guitar players in Nashville.     RS

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sign up info

Read before you sign up to find out what the requirements are!

Store

© 2019   Created by Gav Brown.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service