Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Philosophical Comment

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Philosophical Comment

    The only time when asking someone a question to clarify their position is considered a personal attack is when the person knows they are guilty.

    The only time a generic comment that names nobody can be considered a personal attack is when the person knows they are guilty.

    Just a comment on general philosophy and behavior.

    Nope, the weather is still the same.
    An open mind is a good thing.
    Ensure that you don't open your mind so far that your brain falls out.

  • #2
    Originally posted by kamatu View Post
    The only time when asking someone a question to clarify their position is considered a personal attack is when the person knows they are guilty.

    The only time a generic comment that names nobody can be considered a personal attack is when the person knows they are guilty.

    Just a comment on general philosophy and behavior.

    Nope, the weather is still the same.
    Jesus was and is often personally verbally and in writing and by media attacked, and Jesus' followers are hated and attacked also.
    When Jesus or His followers are asked a question , even when it is a personal attack of them or their credibility, they are not guilty and do not retaliate nor seek vengeance as that belongs only to Yahweh.


    Thus the op might be better stated that the only time someone reports/condemns a truth/ position/ or a (rare) news report that is truthful, is when they are in a very dark place themselves and guilty as charged. They are often protected by the system while the truthful publication is denounced and penalized , and the criminals (many of them) both know it, and use it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jethro77 View Post
      Jesus was and is often personally verbally and in writing and by media attacked, and Jesus' followers are hated and attacked also.
      When Jesus or His followers are asked a question , even when it is a personal attack of them or their credibility, they are not guilty and do not retaliate nor seek vengeance as that belongs only to Yahweh.


      Thus the op might be better stated that the only time someone reports/condemns a truth/ position/ or a (rare) news report that is truthful, is when they are in a very dark place themselves and guilty as charged. They are often protected by the system while the truthful publication is denounced and penalized , and the criminals (many of them) both know it, and use it.
      Amen
      An open mind is a good thing.
      Ensure that you don't open your mind so far that your brain falls out.

      Comment


      • #4
        Some more philosophical questions, they are for thought, but can be discussed.

        When does a desire for polite conversation turn into overreach and thence into "political correctness" where someone saying they are offended equals the giving of offense?

        When that happens, when this "desire for polite conversation" that has overreached becomes such that falsehoods are maintained and the truth is ignored, what does that say of those that then find themselves supporting a falsehood?

        In consideration of the question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who guards the guards themselves?" or "Who watches the watchmen?"), what consideration and respect should be rendered to those that choose to to support falsehood over truth in the supposed name of promoting "civil discourse"?

        Something to think on and ponder.

        An open mind is a good thing.
        Ensure that you don't open your mind so far that your brain falls out.

        Comment


        • #5
          Another thought to ponder: What would you consider someone who considers acknowledging a fact that something happened as an attack or criticism of the doing their duty? It makes them appear rather incompetent and not able to actually perform their duty in a credible manner.

          What do you think when that person repeats that error after having it clearly shown that there was no linkage between the duty they performed and the statement of the fact that the duty had been performed? It actually only increases their appearance of being able to perform their duty in a credible or rational manner.

          Another way to put it, when you take statements about a third party as personal, then you lack the ability to judge correctly.

          Things to think and ponder on.
          An open mind is a good thing.
          Ensure that you don't open your mind so far that your brain falls out.

          Comment

          Working...
          X