A revolution in thought

[wildernesse]

Does the world not go on right now, when people leave relationships?

I mean, I don't really see what problems this whole bunch of nonsense about relationships is purporting to solve. From my own astute observations about relationships between men and women, I don't really see the harms he is trying to solve in existence. And certainly not caused by words like beautiful or educated or whatever.

[The Lone Ranger]

Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LIFE IN THE NEW WORLD
A short story in smilies












THE END

That was actually humorous but it shows me how very confused you are. First of all, if it's a true first blow, the husband wouldn't be able to strike it. Therefore, if he leaves his wife to go out with friends, he is not striking a first blow. He has the right-of-way, not his wife, which tells her she must yield to his desire, or she is displaying her selfishness which she doesn't want to do, for the security of her marriage. But he, in turn, knowing she would like his company, may desire to come home early because he knows she would never blame him if he didn't. They will both go out of their way to show their love, but part of showing love is not to be selfish, and in this case, she would be the selfish one if she demanded that he stay home and give up the pleasure of going out with his buddies.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Does the world not go on right now, when people leave relationships?

I mean, I don't really see what problems this whole bunch of nonsense about relationships is purporting to solve. From my own astute observations about relationships between men and women, I don't really see the harms he is trying to solve in existence. And certainly not caused by words like beautiful or educated or whatever.

Yes, the world goes on, but wouldn't you rather have an intact marriage, than be a divorcee having to start all over again? There is so much hurt in this world, we've gotten numb to it. There are so many people who live in quiet desperation. Most people, I believe, would love to have the key to a happy and fulfilling marriage, and that's what Lessans is showing, but remember, a lot of problems in marriage stem from pressures that come from outside the marriage, which are also going to be removed.

The words beautiful, educated, ugly, intelligent, etc. are the root cause of low self-esteem and they need to be removed in order to heal our world. When these words are no longer used, we will finally be able to see ourselves, and others, as we really are, instead of through a distorted lens.

[LadyShea]

What a person does in his life does not a pig make.

I judge people by their actions and behavior. I refer to selfish, shallow, sexist people as pigs

You might not like that person's characteristics, but it doesn't give you the right to call him names.

I wasn't referring to any specific person or anything, I was referring to a type of person. And yes, if I don't like the way someone behaves, of course I have the right to call that person names. Just as you have the right to chastise me for calling people names.

Speaking is a right

That word is very demeaning, and you know it.

Of course I know it, I intend it to be demeaning.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the world goes on, but wouldn't you rather have an intact marriage, than be a divorcee having to start over again?

Yeah, but you just said a few posts ago that the men and women might want to end up leaving (and no one would stop/blame them for it) because of infertility. So in the new world, there is still the possibility for being divorced or having to start over again (obviously also because your partner died) anyway.

Therefore, since the being divorced/starting all over again is not eliminated in the new world, then the world goes on in both situations and this statement can't be used as a reason to support Lessans' ideas about relationships.

I do have an intact marriage, and it isn't because of any agreement with Lessans' ideas. Therefore, Lessans' ideas are not necessary to have an intact marriage. Duh.

There is so much hurt in this world, we've gotten numb to it. There are so many people who live in quiet desperation. Most people, I believe, would love to have the key to a happy and fulfilling marriage, and that's what Lessans is showing, but remember, a lot of problems in marriage stem from pressures that come from outside the marriage, which are also going to be removed.

No, Lessans has not shown what the key is to a happy and fulfilling marriage. I would say that there isn't any one key to a happy and fulfilling marriage, because there is such a variety of people that there isn't any one thing by itself that will magically unlock some kind of secret to a happy and fulfilling marriage. None of his examples provide the nuance that is needed to address this, and many of his examples seem destined to work only for a person who doesn't understand emotional intimacy.

The words beautiful, educated, ugly, intelligent, etc. are the root cause of low self-esteem and they need to be removed in order to heal our world. When these words are no longer used, we will finally be able to see ourselves, and others, as we really are, instead of through a distorted lens.

Saying so doesn't make it so. These words are not the root cause of low self-esteem. They do not need to be removed, nor do other words like level, dirty, red, or opaque.

[wildernesse]

peacegirl, if I said, "I find it incredible that a person with your mental capacity is able to type in complete sentences." what words should be removed to prevent the sentence from being insulting and allegedly causing low self-esteem?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Saying so doesn't make it so.

And that, in a nutshell, is the death knell for The Sacred Text of Seymour Lessans (pbuh) in its entirety.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was actually humorous but it shows me how very confused you are. First of all, if it's a true first blow, the husband wouldn't be able to strike it. Therefore, if he leaves his wife to go out with friends, he is not striking a first blow. He has the right-of-way, not his wife, which tells her she must yield to his desire, or she is displaying her selfishness which she doesn't want to do, for the security of her marriage. But he, in turn, knowing she would like his company, may desire to come home early because he knows she would never blame him if he didn't. They will both go out of their way to show their love, but part of showing love is not to be selfish, and in this case, she would be the selfish one if she demanded that he stay home and give up the pleasure of going out with his buddies.

Or, as depicted in the skit above, the wife bitch-slaps her selfish prick of a husband while he's babbling at her, cutting off all his Lessans-babble and putting an end to the problem right there, as well as an end to the "New World."

[peacegirl]

What a person does in his life does not a pig make.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I judge people by their actions and behavior. I refer to selfish, shallow, sexist people as pigs

It's interesting to note that when all judgment ceases, people will stop being selfish, shallow, and sexist.

You might not like that person's characteristics, but it doesn't give you the right to call him names.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wasn't referring to any specific person or anything, I was referring to a type of person. And yes, if I don't like the way someone behaves, of course I have the right to call that person names. Just as you have the right to chastise me for calling people names.

Speaking is a right

Speaking is a right, and you have the right to call people names if you want to, but you won't want to when you fully realize that calling people names only incites the very behavior you are in judgment of.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

peacegirl, if I said, "I find it incredible that a person with your mental capacity is able to type in complete sentences." what words should be removed to prevent the sentence from being insulting and allegedly causing low self-esteem?

Incredible might make me feel unincredible. Please remove it

Capacity and complete both indicate quantification, and I might feel pressure to increase my quantity of something. Please remove them

Your might mean me, and that feels accusatory. Please remove it.

I is just selfish. Remove it.

It is observed that a person with mental traits is able to type in sentences

There. That doesn't hurt my feelings at all

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Or, as depicted in the skit above, the wife bitch-slaps her selfish prick of a husband while he's babbling at her, cutting off all his Lessans-babble and putting an end to the problem right there, as well as an end to the "New World."

You can't stand when you're outsmarted, can you? How could she slap her husband when she knows that she would be in the wrong, and this behavior could eventually jeapordize her marriage?

[davidm]

LIFE IN THE NEW WORLD
A short story in smilies









Later...







A good time is had by all, except for mousewife, who sits home alone because she is compelled by her free will not to strike the first blow against her husband's free will:



Later still ...












THE END

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Incredible might make me feel unincredible. Please remove it

Capacity and complete both indicate quantification, and I might feel pressure to increase my quantity of something. Please remove them

Your might mean me, and that feels accusatory. Please remove it.

I is just selfish. Remove it.

There. That doesn't hurt my feelings at all

It's not any one word in the sentence that is hurtful. It's the intent behind the sentence that is hurtful.

[wildernesse]

I might be coming around to removing words from the language. There is so much more room for description without words like beautiful and ugly.

"Her skin reminds me of the surface of a peach pit."

"The girls sounded like a flock of grackles."

"The scent from his armpits was like a decaying possum."

[LadyShea]

Yes, we know peacegirl. Wildy was pointing out that banning words will not eliminate the ability to hurt with words. DUH!

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not any one word in the sentence that is hurtful. It's the intent behind the sentence that is hurtful.

So why are words like beautiful and ugly hurtful in and of themselves, so much so that they need to be removed from existence?

You can do it!

[Stephen Maturin]

wildernesse, you simply don't understand the two-sided equation or the projection of words onto a screen of undeniable substance. Time to start all over again, I'm afraid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LIFE IN THE NEW WORLD
A short story in smilies










Later...







A good time is had by all, except for mousewife, who sits home alone because she is compelled by her free will not to strike the first blow against her husband's free will:



Later still ...












THE END

Once again, you are completely misinterpreting the meaning of what he's saying. It is true that if he wants to go out after rumpy pumpy, or whatever you call it (), he has the right-of-way if he should desire to leave, and it's also true that he doesn't have to tell her where he's going, but he would never answer her in the way you just described because that's not showing his love to her. Ironically, his desire to stay home may be more satisfying than his desire to go out because he enjoys being home, which is controlled to a large degree by his wife's actions.

[Vivisectus]

You are very confused Vivisectus. Where does contraception come into this? The only time he mentioned this is in regard to a boy and girl meeting for the first time. Because there is always the possibility of pregnancy, the boy has to be prepared just in case. That's all he meant, and you are twisting the meaning behind everything you have read

.

Population control, peacegirl. Try to keep up! The men in the white coats were deciding that earth was getting too crowded?

Dressing a certain way is letting one's partner know one is in the mood for sex. If the invitation is accepted, then that means both people desire the same thing. It's called plain old consideration.

No, it is your father being especially dense when he could not avoid actually dealing with a delicate potential conflict of interest - one partner desires sex, but is trying to find out of the other does too without making it an obligation - and making a complete farce of it by describing a rather funny sex-ritual involving special "translucent robes and sexy jackets" for men and special sex-words and negligees for women, completely missing the point that any such a pre-agreed signal clearly implies an invitation - thus neatly bringing us back to square one.

A beautiful and hilarious example of his bungled attempts to try to get reality to fit into neat, easy little binary packets so they in turn will fit in the teetering, tottering edifice of a system that he built on top of his initial mistake.

[LadyShea]

that calling people names only incites the very behavior you are in judgment of.

Really? People become selfish and shallow and sexist because I call them pigs? Wow. What happens when I call them sheep?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

So why are words like beautiful and ugly hurtful in and of themselves, so much so that they need to be removed from existence?

You can do it!

The word "ugly" to describe a person's physiognomy is unjust, and that's what the word "beautiful" implies. It implies that there are ugly people in the world, which is incorrect. These words do not accurately symbolize reality, and has caused many people to see pure ugliness when they look in the mirror. This is difficult to rectify because the conditioning has already taken place. A young child can be especially hurt by these words where he eventually may need a psychiatrist who will put him on antidepressants for the rest of his life. Many people never get over feelings of inferiority that started in early childhood, all because of words, not reality.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

wildernesse, you simply don't understand the two-sided equation or the projection of words onto a screen of undeniable substance. Time to start all over again, I'm afraid.

you are also thinking in terms of the free-will environment. In the wonderful new environment, no-one would say mean words because they know that man's will is not free, and that no-one would blame them if they said mean words, which no-one could make them do if they didn't want to. So they would just disappear by themselves.

Also, your undue burdening of her with your questions is a bit of a first blow to Peacegirl, as you should have been more considerate as you are advance-blaming her for possibly not wanting to answer her, but we won't blame you for it because you only did it because for you it was a move towards satisfaction.

[Stephen Maturin]

Now there's a person who understands the two-sided equation!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Really? People become selfish and shallow and sexist because I call them pigs? Wow. What happens when I call them sheep?

It's the intent behind the word LadyShea, just like any word that is meant to hurt, which is why the N word is upsetting to many blacks. It's interesting to note that if you called me a sheep, it wouldn't have the same effect on me as if you called me a pig.