At 8/28/06 10:53 AM, Intrinsik4 wrote:At 8/28/06 05:49 AM, Specusci wrote: I really don't understand why everyone thinks that they should have a monopoly on the actions of others.So I’ll be completely open with you eh?
1. I got involved in this topic not because of my grandmother. Rather, the reason I’m so vehement about not smoking has more to do with my recently working at a convenience store. I promoted smoking via sales in order to keep my job, and this disgusted me. Here in this thread, I’m handed someone who just began smoking. I’m handed an opportunity to make up for my past sins. Consciously speaking? I was clueless to this motivation until after I shut down my computer and sat in bed thinking about it. I know consciously that my selling cigarettes was a done deed, but the urge to redeem myself was there regardless. It sounds pretty funny written out.
I honestly have no idea what that feels like. Sorry. Call me cold, but I couldn't care less how my actions effected another person, unless to promote a personal belief or further a goal. My best advice would be to "redeem" yourself in a less contaminating manner.
2. I am now in this topic for a different reason: jealousy. I’m jealous of people who can faithfully recite blind ideals that pander to, rather than justify, their weaknesses.
Reciting blind ideals to pander weakness is as bad as acting out on jealousy.
You underestimate the power of self-delusion. 20 years from now, this thread will be forgotten, and he’ll be blaming the cigarettes.
Then let him.
I understand that my thoughts are my thoughts, and I hope that others understand that I understand that. I just find things easier to read and understand when you don’t have to say “I think” in every clause. Additionally, omitting things like “I think” implies confidence in one thoughts, and increases the chances of being considered. And… I do have a good amount of confidence in my thoughts.
I think that different cultures and societies would think differently of this. Where I am from, it is considered arrogant to omit "I Think", as this implies you are so confident in your belief that you believe it is factual.
Wrong… I will explain why…
First off, the urge is part of the want, specifically, an involuntary manifestation of want. You want to kill someone. You do not want to go to jail. The two conditions are however, tied to one another created what I’ll call (for lack of a better word at the moment) a “situation.” Through reasoning, one could then conclude that they do not want to get involved in such a situation. The want to kill someone either remains or is suppressed. The fact that such a want is suppressed does not mean the want is not wanted, it means the consequence and likewise the “situation” is not wanted.
These are a variety of wants. The want discussed here is the overall effect, the end product. An urge is a primitive form of "want", but an intelligent being would see that the immediate effect of such urges is not immediatly effecient/effective to fulfill the want. Instead, it will consider the possible outcomes of situations inolving the fulfillment of the want, then either eliminate or ignore the urge until later. Effectively, they no longer want to carry out the action. You may stare into the eyes of your most hated enemy, and want to kill them, but you will realize that you may be disadvantaged to do so at the particular moment, so you no longer want to carry out the action.
Also, my point was not one of cause and effect, or actions and consequence. It was an example of controlling/limiting factors. You are limited by the foresight of consequence and reason in the murder example. Other examples…
1. A child wants a new toy but has not the money.
2. A weakling wants to beat up a bully but has not the strength.
3. A person wishes to fly but has not the wings.
All of the above can also include consequence and reasoning when applied to an instance.
I see. However, I wouldn't consider the situation as such.
You’re trying to paint an absurdist picture. But I rather agree with you. However, alcohol in moderation is healthy, and driving can be necessitated in certain situations.
Even if you drive safely, not everyone else does. You don't have to be the drunk one to be involved in a drunk driving accident.
Studies have shown that smokers are more productive; however, it is not from the smoke. It is from the nicotine. (Incase anyone was going to bring that up to counter my alcohol in moderation point.)
It doesn't make them live any longer, nor does it decrease the chance of developing cancer. What good is heightened productivity, when only half of the common working life might be useful?
This is a public thread. The author knew that going in.
Yesh, I get a little carried away sometimes. Alot. Just ignore the senseless ranting. And no jokes about my entire argument being senseless ranting :-\
People live vicariously all the time.
An evolutionary mechanism.
