Is Rudy really Insane?

We didn't LEARN to have a sex drive or fall in love. Emotions are things our dna learned to ensure our survival, and often they are a BETTER indicator of what will ensure our survival than a reliance upon the nihilist memes implanted by hierarchical, corrupt, and manipulative society.

I agree with the first part , but think you left out the fact that our emotions allow us to be used by the parties you mentioned, and a lot more.
 
Joking about killing anybody is not right, joking about killing those you know because you disagree, even worse.

I don't know how to say it better than that.

I don't know how often I have heard somebody say, "It is wrong to call me unamerican because I dislike the policy of the Administration." How is it better to say, "You should be dead because I disagree with your political view!"?

I would mention that joking about killing Arabs too. But it is especially true about killing your neighbor because of political disagreement. Each time you dismiss the humanity of another because of disagreement you lose a bit of yourself in the process.

All that you are is a result of what you have thought, it is made up of those thoughts, from those thoughts you shape your world.


Well said Damo and I agree.

Ornot it actually demeans the wise things you have to say.
 
No, it's not impossible. Emotional responses are triggered by external stimuli directly, before explicit thought kicks in.
Rubbish, it is trained. It seems to be solely reactive because it is internalized. The thought processes are not conscious many times, but it doesn't mean that they are non-existent.

For instance, in the example provided above. An abused child doesn't automatically fear their parents, it is only after they are trained to fear and flinch that the reaction is apparent. It feels as if their responses are only from the stimuli, but they are not.

Before the abuse begins the hand goes up, they have no reaction, the hand hits, later they have reaction to it based on self-preservation and the introduction of negative stimuli. There is a thought process that goes into it, even though it seems to be only "reaction" to the stimuli.

A child never abused, the hand goes up in the same way, no reaction. This is not "instinctive" behavior regardless of how much it seems so.
 
We didn't LEARN to have a sex drive or fall in love. Emotions are things our dna learned to ensure our survival, and often they are a BETTER indicator of what will ensure our survival than a reliance upon the nihilist memes implanted by hierarchical, corrupt, and manipulative society.

(just shakes head)
 
Rubbish, it is trained. It seems to be solely reactive because it is internalized. The thought processes are not conscious many times, but it doesn't mean that they are non-existent.

For instance, in the example provided above. An abused child doesn't automatically fear their parents, it is only after they are trained to fear and flinch that the reaction is apparent. It feels as if their responses are only from the stimuli, but they are not.

Before the abuse begins the hand goes up, they have no reaction, the hand hits, later they have reaction to it based on self-preservation and the introduction of negative stimuli. There is a thought process that goes into it, even though it seems to be only "reaction" to the stimuli.

A child never abused, the hand goes up in the same way, no reaction. This is not "instinctive" behavior regardless of how much it seems so.
You're applying "thought" to any cerebral function whatsoever? That's silly. "Thought" is generally used for conscious processes only. If a "thought" is unconscious then I don't hold anyone responsible for it and neither should you. At that level it's just an involuntary response -- an emotional response.

Reflexive, involuntary responses can be learned. In humans they're ALL learned. We have less than half a dozen truly instinctive responses. Just because they're learned, however, does not make them voluntary or readily accessible to conscious control. And if some response isn't accessible to conscious control then I don't see how you can possibly assign blame -- or any moral judgment at all -- to the response.

Returning to Earth, emotional responses are generally beyond one's control. They simply happen. How one reacts to these impulses, however, is not at all beyond control. If one's emotions become too violent or powerful to control or deal with then one needs psychotherapy. That's what therapy is for.
 
You're applying "thought" to any cerebral function whatsoever? That's silly. "Thought" is generally used for conscious processes only. If a "thought" is unconscious then I don't hold anyone responsible for it and neither should you. At that level it's just an involuntary response -- an emotional response.

Reflexive, involuntary responses can be learned. In humans they're ALL learned. We have less than half a dozen truly instinctive responses. Just because they're learned, however, does not make them voluntary or readily accessible to conscious control. And if some response isn't accessible to conscious control then I don't see how you can possibly assign blame -- or any moral judgment at all -- to the response.

Returning to Earth, emotional responses are generally beyond one's control. They simply happen. How one reacts to these impulses, however, is not at all beyond control. If one's emotions become too violent or powerful to control or deal with then one needs psychotherapy. That's what therapy is for.
The original reaction was clearly conscious, the initial reaction was taught.

Also, emotional reactions are not beyond your control or therapy would never work, at all. The idea that they are not "readily accessible" is totally beyond all logic. You can find the reason, with introspection, and train new responses. This is taught. All that you are, including your "instinctual" reaction (not instinctual, that is hardwired and would be more like eye color or hair color, but those are not emotional, they themselves are stimuli), has been created by your thought.

If your weak argument here were all that could be applied, we could then assign no blame to those who emotionally react to those of different pigmentations, their excuses could be, and often are, the same. "I can't control my emotional response to... " insert whichever group you want here. It is the very description of prejudice. You have prejudged, you have taught yourself to respond in such a way, and you use that as an excuse because you "cannot control" such a response. It is hogwash for the bigot, it is hogwash here. You have allowed yourself to be strung along by those who would split the US into two camps who can never cross.

You have become a tool of separation. And your very excuses fly into the face of what you have been taught of prejudice for most of your life.

You accept this as an excuse because you want to feel okay about wishing their death, because they first "hurt" you by calling you "unAmerican" or whatever supposed justification you have for vengeance.

Desh had the right of it, you look less in everybody's eyes for using such a lame excuse to declare your actions to be okay, while at the same time rejecting the excuse for another group's actions (the unAmerican slander).

You are right, we can disagree, but you will never regain what you lose through your actions.
 
You are right, we can disagree, but you will never regain what you lose through your actions.
//

Yep the story of the Republican party right now.
 
You are right, we can disagree, but you will never regain what you lose through your actions.
//

Yep the story of the Republican party right now.
Basically, you can however learn, retrain, and gain. You may never regain what you have lost, but that does not foreshadow that you will never gain again.

Thankfully, as I predicted, the RR will be seen as the bane that it has been for the party. Already Tommy Thompson is gone, soon the other of the ultra-religious will also be gone, the RR can feel their power waning as we type...

I have predicted this since we started on p.com. I am sure at least one or two of you will remember.
 
Basically, you can however learn, retrain, and gain. You may never regain what you have lost, but that does not foreshadow that you will never gain again.

Thankfully, as I predicted, the RR will be seen as the bane that it has been for the party. Already Tommy Thompson is gone, soon the other of the ultra-religious will also be gone, the RR can feel their power waning as we type...

I have predicted this since we started on p.com. I am sure at least one or two of you will remember.

I remember, but you still were pullling for them a lot more back then too...
 
I remember, but you still were pullling for them a lot more back then too...
Not for religious "conservatives" (they are not conservative, they advocate radical change in law, that is not a conservative ideal).

I pull for the party, much like maineman says, I believe their platform to be the better path for the nation. However, they haven't followed the platform I bought in on for a long time... Basically since 2000.
 
Not for religious "conservatives" (they are not conservative, they advocate radical change in law, that is not a conservative ideal).

I pull for the party, much like maineman says, I believe their platform to be the better path for the nation. However, they haven't followed the platform I bought in on for a long time... Basically since 2000.

I think it actually started changing during the second Regan term.
they got to powerful and forgot what put them in power.
 
I think it actually started changing during the second Regan term.
they got to powerful and forgot what put them in power.
That was the time the religious guys decided to band together and create a strong coalition to take a position of power in the party. I have been working against that prevalence basically since then. People who prefer what I do need to get their butts to the caucuses and take those back first, they set the platform, they set the tone, they select the future candidates.
 
That was the time the religious guys decided to band together and create a strong coalition to take a position of power in the party. I have been working against that prevalence basically since then. People who prefer what I do need to get their butts to the caucuses and take those back first, they set the platform, they set the tone, they select the future candidates.

Yeah like selecting Thompson...sigh....
 
This is another of those things about which we're just going to have to disagree.

First, I think it's far worse to denigrate the outsider, the foreigner, than it is to denigrate the neighbor whom you might actually know. I despise all forms of nationalism, especially reflexive home-boy-ism. I'd far rather hear an American bitch about stupid, destructive Americans than about allegedly stupid, destructive Arabs or Persians.
This is exactly the "hate thyself first" brainwash the globalists are instilling in western nations. Don't fall for it.
 
LMAO..........

Thompson IS the candidate being trotted out to save the Republican Party. That's because traditional Republican voters are scared shitless of having the "Top Tier" candidates representing their party. They know they'll get spanked by Hillary because the base won't turn out.

Despite what the media or Republican Party leaders will tell you, regular Republicans don't want Giuliani or Romney and especially not McCain. They don't think any of them are Conservative.

But that doesn't mean Thompson is a virtual shoe-in like Hillary is for her nomination. He has a lot of work to do explain to people why he wants to be President and what he would do different.

And so do all the candidates. You seem to think that who becomes President is a matter of people randomly showing up on election day and deciding the winner based on their media hype. There's a lot more work that goes into shaping the debate and influencing people's choices.

The race for the Republican nomination is just beginning and it could go a number of ways at the moment.



You my friend..are on to something he is in serious need of finding a new outlet...kinda/sorta akin to Teddy Roosevelt..the :moos: party era...speaking as a conservative party member registered 'American Independent' mind ya...if we had a viable candidate I would vote my chosen party...not a veggie,nor demo nor gop groupie...;)
 
Back
Top