Cosmic Plumber's Union

[Kyle Weiss]

True, true and more true. It's hard enough trying to convey clear thoughts with proper words and wording that many people don't understand, only to be further confused by very "liquid" words mixing into people's assumptions. That's when "agree to disagree" tends to soft-close any discussion. You know, the Borg Collective did at least a few things right. :lol:

 

[bosun1]

You can't always get what you want, but you can always get what you need. A paraphrase (sayingthat cause I might nor exactly remember it) from the Stones.
Profit is getting enough. Greed is getting too much. Probably two different numbers between me and "The Donald"!

 

[Vito]

...Profit is getting enough. Greed is getting too much. Probably two different numbers between me and "The Donald"!

I have no doubt that the two numbers are different, and therein lies the problem Bro'. Maybe if you were to sit down with Donald (assuming he would agree that it's any of your business), he might explain to your satisfaction why his number and yours don't jive.

In any case, you've identified the fundamental problem—namely that what you think is “greed” is your opinion, not the opinion of the person who owns the property involved. Perhaps you could persuade Donald that your opinion should overrule his. I doubt it, but at least that would be the honest approach.

But that's not the approach most people take. The usual approach is to get the politicians to act as a proxy for their opinion by forcing business owners to do their bidding under the threat of coercive interference. In other words, "If you don't agree with my opinion about how much is enough, I'll get someone who will force you to agree." And the hired thugs are only too happy to assist you. They thrive on conflict. In fact, they depend on it.

It's the us vs. them approach—a zero sum game in which there must be winners and losers. It's the classic approach of politics, and it explains why everything is such a friggin' mess. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every job looks like a nail. There are far better solutions that require no one to lose, and which create a helluva lot less conflict into the bargain. But not if we're going to insist that every problem is a nail.

I have found that "Don't treat other people the way you don't want to be treated" is a general operating principle that works pretty well for me. Part of that is not interfering with things that aren't any of my business. That's a matter of principle. Once you violate that principle and go down that road of forcing others to do your bidding, where do you stop?

You may consider that a rhetorical question to which you need not respond. I know full well that others don't see it that way, and I suspect that we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point, and let it lie there, as you suggested earlier. That's OK with me.

:joker:

 

[bosun1]

"I have found that "Don't treat other people the way you don't want to be treated" is a general operating principle that works pretty well for me. Part of that is not interfering with things that aren't any of my business. That's a matter of principle. Once you violate that principle and go down that road of forcing others to do your bidding, where do you stop? "

A slippery slope indeed. I prefer the old fashioned golden rule myself, but it is a fact of nature that the modern definition is more applicable. All you can do is what you feel right for yourself and try to run your life the way you see fit. The floor of hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Vito]

...I prefer the old fashioned golden rule myself, but it is a fact of nature that the modern definition is more applicable...

Indeed. Perhaps there was a time when people were not twisted perverts (although I don't really believe that), and it was "safe" to use the traditional version of the Golden Rule. But these days, it doesn't work. I learned from my years in the music biz that there were some real sickos who would have loved it if I or anyone else had done some things unto them that I definitely would want them to do unto me.

The double negative version is much more practical because it's far less meddlesome. At least it seems to so to me. My interpretation is this: The baseline condition of all interaction is that you do NOTHING unto others without their permission. If there's any uncertainty, the moral compass is, "Would I want them to treat me that way?" If the answer is no, you're probably going to start some trouble if you go ahead and do it anyway.

The rule does not apply to defense, of course. If someone attacks you, you have a right to defend yourself. All defense is moral.

:joker:

 

[Kyle Weiss]

...and the pesky underlying theme of "Pride" comes back around for a visit again...which is why the good ol' "Seven Deadly" are simple, non-partisan (and even secular) food for thought. Pride comes into play when greed is realized, often, and morphs it into some form of jealousy. That's when greed gets redefined, and re-redefined.

I remember once someone was about to give me something. A shirt, I think it was. It was gift from their recent visit to a small regional band I liked, playing live, that I could not attend. In my teenage, youthful exuberance I jumped up (acting before thinking, as per the norm, I suppose), and grabbed the shirt (playfully). Even though the giver was anxious to give the gift to me, he held onto the other end of it...and fiercely so. We ended up tugging on the thing like errant puppies with a rope until finally he let go, pissed off, and didn't talk to me for six months. When we revisited the incident later, he even said, "I don't know why, it just made me mad. It wasn't how you acted, you've always been that way, it was like you took away my control to just do what I wanted to do and how I wanted to do it."

Very interesting. It was one of those "lightbulb" moments. Not for me realizing I was socially uncouth, but that weird scenario that something unintended happened with the same outcome. The outcome became superfluous, and a concept of what expectation and control meant gained another objective viewpoint.

We apes like control. We like knowing we have something, or will have something. We don't like it when other apes have more than we do. We act accordingly. Different baboons, different fig trees...different perspectives. Morals are often the contrary to whatever barbaric ignorance and/or nature we believe, be it the innocence beginning of Eden or our climbing up the evolutionary chain. We recognize "good" and "bad" and how we should act, but it's never that simple. So we fill in the gaps, and screw up. A lot. :lol:

 

[Vito]

...Morals are often the contrary to whatever barbaric ignorance and/or nature we believe, be it the innocence beginning of Eden or our climbing up the evolutionary chain...

That's good, but I think you might be including much more in "morals" than I do...namely, things like ethics, judgment, circumspection, long-term perspective, and The Bigger Picture<img class="emojione" alt="" title=":tm:" title=":tm:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/2122.png?v=2.2.7"/>. I think that some of that stuff derives from morality, but because of that derivative nature it picks up other factors that make those larger issues more complicated.

Morality (to me) isn't complicated at all. It simply means not interfering with people against their will if they're not interfering with you. The problem is that people often don't know when they're interfering with each other. That's why we draw boundaries, make agreements, and try to lay out the lines of demarcation; it's so we know what lines we shouldn't cross.

Actually, that's a helluva lotta work. In my experience, most people aren't willing to do that much work at all, let alone up front—before they get together and start mixing it up with each other. And of course that's exactly why so much of humans' interaction blows up in their faces.

Yeah, I know...the common objection is that that lines of demarcation reduce your "freedom", and people hate that. OK, fine...but unlimited freedom is chaos. If that's what you want, that's already available. You're already "free" to do and say whatatever you want...for a while. But eventually you'll pay a price for it, and that price is bound to be a much bigger loss of freedom when people don't want you around any more. Either you respect other people's boundaries, or they'll invite you to get the hell outa Dodge.

:joker:

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Well, in "morals" (beyond a traditional sense) there's a subcategory of unspoken quality-of-life called "consideration." You'll have to forgive me, my only reason for bringing up the pre-packaged "morals" comparison was to barely scratch the surface or get the ball rolling. Though, if you think about it, the base morals versus the minutia morals really are the same approach and concept. It's what is done to not inconvenience another. I don't murder someone's wife not because I see it as a generic "wrong," but because it'd make the husband really effing sad. Empathy is a motivator. Like I won't steal some guy's pocketbook full of cash--could be that was education for his kid, which would obviously be counterproductive to the guy (and the kid) possibly bettering themselves.

We're saying the same thing, you just approached from the North, I approached from the South.

One of the things I do routinely preach, be it to a rude neighbor clueless to the Unspoken Rules of Life, to a friend who might have been late to a lunch I was buying for them: consideration. All of our actions affect each other. The care and acknowledgment we have to that end, in regard to each other, is dwindling fast, and with more people being whipped up and presented every day, it's getting harder and hard to avoid the actions of one another. One would think it a good idea to intensify our methods of consideration to achieve harmony.

We're also a hard-headed species. :lol:

 

[Vito]

...One would think it a good idea to intensify our methods of consideration to achieve harmony.

It's incomprehensible to me that anyone could disagree with anything you wrote, Kyle. Alas, it is a sad but undeniable fact that some of our fellow humanoids openly disdain consideration or harmony. They don't get it. I mean, they literally and openly admit that they don't understand why it's even useful, much less necessary. As far as I can tell, it's perceived as being phony or insincere.

In other words, if something pisses you off or doesn't fit your version of reality, it's your right to attack it...no, wait—it's your duty to attack it. Otherwise, you're not being faithful to your "true nature"...or some such mental aberration. I can only speculate as to what lies at the root of such sociopathy. Blindness? Arrogance? Unreconstructed egomania? Beats me. All I know is that such self-prepossession is utterly destructive.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, where survival requires cooperation with other humanoids, consideration works, and harmony transforms work into play. It beats the hell out of seeing everyone as The Enemy<img class="emojione" alt="" title=":tm:" title=":tm:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/2122.png?v=2.2.7"/> if they happen to have a different perspective. For my part, I've found that different perspectives are one of the most valuable parts of true friendship. But that value is only accessible to those who are willing and able to learn...something our hard-headed species often finds difficult. :mrgreen:

:joker:

 

[Kyle Weiss]

...well, then you have real phoniness, like the concept of "diversity." You know, the bumper-sticker philosophy that encourages tolerance (I have extensive notions on that word/concept, myself), but in reality all it does is put people in an intellectual void where no one really understands what others mean to them...so The Enemy(tm) as you put it, is even a further polished idea.

Ramblings of a pretty complicated subject, really. One not summed up easily on a forum or a single paragraph. *sigh* :|

Though the idea of consideration, and really being okay with the fact people can and will disagree, perhaps even find value and worth in the exchange such standpoints can have...all the while having a baseline that considers others. Little stuff would become huge. Like when people find it almost quaint and a fascinating discussion point that I'll hold the door open for people...sometime groups of people. I smile. I say, "Hello," "Good (enter non-numerical time of day here)," "Please," and "Thank-you." I try to instill a trust of patience when engaging other humans.

Meanwhile, when it is not returned or even criticized, it's tough not to see everyone as The Enemy(tm). What a crappy way to live. So, I merely interact how I would think the world better if others did. That goes beyond a "treat others as you'd like to be treated," because it's a mindset, not just a simple decision to be nice. Harmony, etc. People haven't forgotten it, because sometimes people react very positively to it--and you can tell it makes their day. That's worth it. If it doesn't work out, well, I haven't made my day worse for myself, and that's a concept of self-consideration that's pretty important. Infectious, if you ask me--tough to be truly considerate to yourself (antithesis = self-centered) and not extend that to others.

Bleh, just rambling. :lol: Thanks for listening.

8)

 

[Vito]

I am repulsed by bumper stickers. I don't put them in other people's faces, and I don't want them in my face. For example:

• I don't give a rat's behind whether there's a "Baby on Board". I'm not going to drive like an asshat anyway, baby or not.
• I couldn't care less who voted for whom. That's a personal problem; keep it to yourself.
• I was thinking globally and acting locally before touchy-feely exhibitionists turned it into a quasi-religious mantra.
• I can't save the Earth from people who think they can Save The Earth<img class="emojione" alt="" title=":tm:" title=":tm:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/emojione/assets/png/2122.png?v=2.2.7"/>.

In my opinion, there's way too much visual and aural noise pollution. People who feel the need to advertise their psychoses or preach their prejudices might benefit greatly from the services of qualified mental health professionals. :mrgreen:

:joker:

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Vito, you have a way of making my day. Just thought you should know that. :cheers:

8)

PS, I put weird bumper stickers on my car. "Keep Reno Awkward" has been an interesting topic-starter at gas stations. That, and "I :heart: explosives." *shrug* :lol: Plus, they cover up rust.

 

[Vito]

Correction: I'm usually repulsed by bumper stickers. I'd chuckle if I saw yours, Kyle. :twisted:

:joker:

 

[Kyle Weiss]

Correction: I'm usually repulsed by bumper stickers. I'd chuckle if I saw yours, Kyle. :twisted:

:joker:

Before the zombie craze, a friend of mine had some stickers made that said "I'd Rather Be Shooting Zombies," with a picture of some gal from the original Dawn of the Dead. Naturally I had to take that one off when I was being forced to engage the slackjaws in "prepping." *sigh* I still have a few "WWHSD?" stickers... (What Would Han Solo Do?) George Luca$ hasn't caught wind of those unlicensed products yet. Makes it funnier.

 

[bosun]

Talk about bumper sticks brought to mind this joke:

An honest man was being tailgated by a stressed out woman on a busy boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection.

The tailgating woman hit the roof, and the horn, screaming in frustration as she missed her chance to get through the intersection.

As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, finger-printed, and photographed, and then placed in a holding cell.

After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects.

He said, "I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the guy in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the 'Choose Life' license plate holder, the 'What Would Jesus Do?' bumper sticker, the 'Follow Me to Sunday School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk. Naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car!"

 

[Kyle Weiss]

That's a funny one. I heard the version where it was peace symbols, harmony, diversity and loving life and the planet types of stickers.

This theme just rekindles acknowledgment pepole enjoy boldly stating their revelations far before, if ever, they get there. (...it's the thought that counts?) :lol: At least Universities aren't giving out degrees before completion of the courses--we'll know this contemporary saga is concluding when that occurs. It's bad enough they hand them out how they do.

8)

 

[bosun]

My favorite bumper sticker:

I may be slow, but I'm ahead of you!


And let's not forget the bumper sticker for when Hilary was thinking of running:

Supporters - "Hillary Run" on the back bumper.
Non-Supporters: "Hillary Run" on the front bumper!

 

[Vito]

I've always been tempted to have one made that says, "Don't read this." :mrgreen:

:joker: