Ghosts and other Paranormalities

[sanjuro_ronin]

Like I said, tolerance of the views we agree on.

[David Jamieson]

Like I said, tolerance of the views we agree on.

But here's the thing, we are talking about living breathing human beings. No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

If we were talking about objects, then yes, absolutely, or conventions, or constructs or political policy etc etc.

But your three things as examples were all about not accepting human diversity. It's not a "view we agree on" it's simple compassion and decency and if people don't have that, maybe they should consult the wisdom from somewhere else in order to obtain it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

But here's the thing, we are talking about living breathing human beings. No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

If we were talking about objects, then yes, absolutely, or conventions, or constructs or political policy etc etc.

But your three things as examples were all about not accepting human diversity. It's not a "view we agree on" it's simple compassion and decency and if people don't have that, maybe they should consult the wisdom from somewhere else in order to obtain it.

According to YOUR view and what YOU view as something that should be accepted and tolerated.
My point is that we are biased in what we tolerate and what we view as worth tolerating and accepting and bias in regards to people that don't agree with our views.

You have to be careful when you make a broad statement like this:

No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

[David Jamieson]

According to YOUR view and what YOU view as something that should be accepted and tolerated.
My point is that we are biased in what we tolerate and what we view as worth tolerating and accepting and bias in regards to people that don't agree with our views.

You have to be careful when you make a broad statement like this:

I disagree. That broad statement is applicable in virtually all formats.
Punishing a known criminal is not oppression, it is C&P. Now, how we practice C&P has changed considerably over the years and this is due entirely to well...growth, learning an acceptance of differences as well as developing a more compassionate view towards our fellow creatures in particular to our fellow humans.

If someone holds the view that it is ok to oppress others, or enslave them or to exclude them, then I have to say, that I am confident that the right view is the on that sees everyone happy.

People who hold bitterness in their hearts towards others because of someone else's experience and belief that they somehow adhere to are in a state of error in my opinion.

It is wrong to harm others who bring no harm to you. Jews didn't bring harm to Hitler, he had no place in commanding the orders to do what was done and not a single one of the Nazis who carried out those atrocities had any place doing it either on moral grounds or on common sense grounds.

We cannot just allow every hateful and broken minded person to run around and dictate that we should also hate and then wear some silk around our hate as if it's sacred or something.

But if you can provide an example that you think is reflective of where it is ok to oppress someone else because of your viewpoint, I am willing to argue it out or accept it. It's not all case by case. Simple human compassion is common sense to me. Simple human hate has got to go in the garbage bin as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't help anything along. The more we diminish hate and intolerance based on insubstantial viewpoints with no real validity the better.

Love your enemy man. I don't see many people doing this even in that context of it.


EDIT: Accommodating hate is not respecting a point of view. It's foolish.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We oppress behavior that we find immoral or harmful all the time.
You said:
No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

Yet we "oppress" anti-social behaviour all the time.
We "oppress" activities that we have deemed incorrect or harmful all the time.
We "oppress" hate speak all the time.

[David Jamieson]

We oppress behavior that we find immoral or harmful all the time.
You said:
No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

Yet we "oppress" anti-social behaviour all the time.
We "oppress" activities that we have deemed incorrect or harmful all the time.
We "oppress" hate speak all the time.

Now you are splitting hairs.

anti-social behaviour is generally harmful to someone else. We diminish the spread of harm. We are not oppressing and already oppressive thought form that seeks to bring harm.

We don't oppress incorrect or harmful activities. We seek to impede them.
Oppression is generally viewed as something that is morally incorrect.

We shut down hate speak. It's harmful.

Honestly, I really don't think you're advocating for harm in society to be accepted because it's someone's point of view.

In short and by definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

Burdensome, cruel and unjust is not acceptable. That's not just a point of view, those are words that anyone can live by and in doing so be good.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Now you are splitting hairs.

anti-social behaviour is generally harmful to someone else. We diminish the spread of harm. We are not oppressing and already oppressive thought form that seeks to bring harm.

We don't oppress incorrect or harmful activities. We seek to impede them.
Oppression is generally viewed as something that is morally incorrect.

We shut down hate speak. It's harmful.

Honestly, I really don't think you're advocating for harm in society to be accepted because it's someone's point of view.

In short and by definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

Burdensome, cruel and unjust is not acceptable. That's not just a point of view, those are words that anyone can live by and in doing so be good.

Just playing devil's advocate here.
You say tomato and I say Tomahtoe...

Oppression by any other name...

My point stands, we are bias in our views and we will oppress what we agree is incorrect based on that bias far more and far more quicker than what is outside that bias.

100 years ago we would "oppress" women in the work force and now we don't.
The only thing that changed was that the bias against women was overruled by the fact that we could get cheap labour

[David Jamieson]

Just playing devil's advocate here.
You say tomato and I say Tomahtoe...

Oppression by any other name...

My point stands, we are bias in our views and we will oppress what we agree is incorrect based on that bias far more and far more quicker than what is outside that bias.

100 years ago we would "oppress" women in the work force and now we don't.
The only thing that changed was that the bias against women was overruled by the fact that we could get cheap labour

Love and compassion will always beat evil and fear.
I have taken that to the bank on more than one occasion.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Love and compassion will always beat evil and fear.
I have taken that to the bank on more than one occasion.

Great, now you just reminded me of Steven Seagal in Hard to kill !

[Syn7]

No, we won't be physically assaulted (typically) or incarcerated (typically), but we can lose our jobs, we can be made out to be things we are not.
Trying disagreeing with ****sexuality or gay marriage or be a holocaust denier or try to put forth a view that makes a "special interest" group take note.
Free speech tends to be tolerated when the majority or the "special interest" groups agree with it.
Fact is that we all are bias towards the views and opinions we agree with, that;'s just normal, but we should always be aware that is exactly what we are and not try to pass our views off as unbias or even tolerant when, in reality, they aren't.

Must be fun being a neo con in a progressive society. It's amazing how intolerant some progressives can be. I guess in some ways we are all intolerant. But atleast some people put in the effort.

[Syn7]

lol..try being intolerant and in-egalitarian?
No can do Bro, I live in Markham.

first, why disagree with ****sexuality? That in short, makes no sense. It can be shown exactly why the same as how societal hate for gays can be shown to be inculcated over generations into the youth who quite frankly don't know any better.

That persistent message you are given as an infant all the way up to your being socialized with like minded kids in school etc etc.

Anyway, it is an error in thinking to believe that one human being is better than another when it comes to sexual proclivity. Nobody complains about Bolivians and their donkey humping rite of passage tradition.

I think also that people want to understand love on their own terms and by their own limited definition instead of extending it outwards towards the world in a more general sense.

As for marriage, that is a legal binding. There's no reason it should be tied to people's religious beliefs and that is downright silly. Marriage is an economic union and has always been and there are consequences. Why not let the gay folk know the hassle of tax and divorce too? lol

And holocaust denial? That is simply low minded retarded nonsense. People can play with the numbers, but to deny the persecution and murder of Jews in particular along with other "undesirables" was common across Europe actually and it was Hitler and his goofs that made the indelibly stamped memory for the rest of us.

In my opinion, if we don't make the change, we will fall back into out stupid ass ways of hurting people for no other reason than what their preferences are or their religious leanings. And yeah, I think that's unacceptable and would gladly debate anyone that had a capable mind on any of these matters.

the trouble is that anti ****sexuals, anti gay marriage and holocaust deniers etc have a tendency to be locked inside their own point of view and are incapable of any real argument and instead choose to iterate and reiterate their vitriol about what bugs them over and over again and if the current climate of society has them shutting up, good. the can shut the f^%k up. they had their day.

And if they are finally shutting up, maybe they realize the error. Which is a good thing!

Usually it's just excuses to justify their bigotry. Whether intended or not, learned early or acquired later. Intention is irrelevant to this point. When you cherry pick to disagree, you stand on very shakey ground. I mean if we wanna follow leviticus, who isn't going to hell in todays world? You like bacon, wear mixed textiles? both just as bad as ****sexuality according to that particular book/section.

[hskwarrior]

[sanjuro_ronin]

Must be fun being a neo con in a progressive society. It's amazing how intolerant some progressives can be. I guess in some ways we are all intolerant. But atleast some people put in the effort.

Indeed.
I know a few conservatives that are so frustrated with society and then again I know quite a bit of liberals that are the same.
Personally, I understand that society is what tends to dictate what is to be tolerated and accepted at any given time, history has taught us that.
I think we LIKE to think we are progressive because, compared to generations of the past, we are more accepting of what THEY were intolerant about.
I guess that is one way to "define" progressive.
I am sure for the guys at NAMBLA society is NOT progressive enough.
I worry sometimes that, in our rush to do things that we THINK we should we forget to think IF we should.
So far we have had our ups and downs through out history BUT I think we have hit the mark MORE than we have missed.

I recall on a friend of mine got AIDS and because he was Gay, how shunned he was by his family. Now, they spoke to him and they didn't "disown" him or what not, but there was such a lack of compassion and love.
They tolerated him.
It was not a pleasant thing to see.
I remember his BIL asking me if I was gay because I knew him and because I gave him a kiss on the cheek.

We have come a long way in many things and still have so much to further to go and I, for one, have much hope and faith in humanity.

That said, I have no delusions about the simple fact that we don't always do what is best for us as a society in the long run.

[GeneChing]

But you know me - I just can't resist a half-decade old ttt.

Uber's 'ghost drivers' scaring passengers out of rides and money
Chinese drivers use zombie-like profile pictures in scam to trick users into paying a cancellation fee
Samuel Gibbs
Thu 22 Sep 2016 06.51 EDT Last modified on Tue 21 Feb 2017 12.14 EST


A boy dressed as a zombie gestures at a taxi driver

Drivers in China are using Uber to scam passengers out of money posing as the dead. Photograph: Stringer/Reuters
China has a so-called “ghost driver” problem, with Uber passengers being scammed out of rides and money, fearful of being picked up by what looks like a zombie.

According to local reports, pick-up requests are being met by Uber drivers using zombie-like profile shots to scare would-be passengers into cancelling their rides, which means the driver is paid a small cancellation fee.

When the passenger books the ride they are shown a profile photo, numberplate and other bits of information about the driver. Given fears over the safety of so-called ride-sharing systems such as Uber, its understandable that when a creepy-looking profile of the driver pops up to confirm their pickup that many passengers simply cancel the request.

Should the passenger carry on with the journey regardless of the deathly face staring at them on their phone, the ghost drivers will also claim that the passenger has entered the vehicle and cancel it a short time after, again charging the customer a small fee.

According to a statement given to Chinese media, Uber is aware of the problem and is in the process of collecting evidence and user reports.

The company said that it has a “zero-tolerance attitude to scamming behaviour” and that it was refunding those scammed and was using technology to try to combat the scammers. It recently introduced facial-recognition technology in an attempt to reduce driver fraud in China, which confirms that the driver’s face matches the one the company has on file.

“We have taken immediate actions and banned these reported individual fraud accounts while continuing to investigate and crack down on any fraudulent behavior to protect rider and driver interests,” an Uber spokesperson told Quartz.

Uber and local rival Didi Chuxing merged at the start of August, leaving the new Uber-branded service with control of the new app-assisted taxi industry in the country. The merger saw Uber hand over its to Didi in exchange for a 20% stake of the company.

This is kind of brilliant actually - well, it was until Uber caught on...