Why do some enjoy seeing others down/fall?

Started by BackFire11 pages

I like yours better.

Originally posted by Lord Shaper
You should... like... write biographies on like...people.

Well sometimes Czarina_Czarina sees things from a larger unexplored point of view, not widely excepted. Just that, and then asks questions about it. Though sometimes they can be quite bizzare. Boards are supposed to be about debating/discussing them. It's called free speach.

I've always heard there is no such thing is a stupid question.

*Gets Popcorn now*

Originally posted by debbiejo
I've always heard there is no such thing is a stupid question.

Stupidest proverb I've ever heard...

Can I have some of that popcorn? ^_^

Stupidest proverb I've ever heard...
Why, I put up with you? lol

Can I have some of that popcorn? ^_^
Well it's for recreationial purposes........sure.

This is a great commentary about AynRand followers:

the duality argument b/c the collective mind(self sacrificers) vs individualism and producers vs looters

the idea behind collective minds doesn't produce looters, as i think she hints at...that collective minds breed slavery or servants and the lack of producing and creativity...

here's the quote:

"Her ethics are doggedly, insistently supremacist, the line between sheep and goats cut in black marker pen. You’re either a producer or a looter, on the side of ‘greatness’, ‘the individual will’ and so on, or one of the ‘parasites’, the ‘mediocrity’, the ‘second-handers’ who feed off their energy;"

And this is from the link that was provided in the last comment.

Now, think of how Neils Bohr would have felt, a scientist vs an author, a person who stated he believed that their was a great collective mind within mankind, and his reputation, once highly regarded, was now, throw down in the eyes of his peers, and i don't know what your science teachers told you about Neils Bohr, but I had plenty tell our class that he was a nut, NOT FAIR.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
This is a great commentary about AynRand followers:

the duality argument b/c the collective mind(self sacrificers) vs individualism and producers vs looters

the idea behind collective minds doesn't produce looters, as i think she hints at...that collective minds breed slavery or servants and the lack of producing and creativity...

here's the quote:

"Her ethics are doggedly, insistently supremacist, the line between sheep and goats cut in black marker pen. You’re either a producer or a looter, on the side of ‘greatness’, ‘the individual will’ and so on, or one of the ‘parasites’, the ‘mediocrity’, the ‘second-handers’ who feed off their energy;"

And this is from the link that was provided in the last comment.

Now, think of how Neils Bohr would have felt, a scientist vs an author, a person who stated he believed that their was a great collective mind within mankind, and his reputation, once highly regarded, was now, throw down in the eyes of his peers, and i don't know what your science teachers told you about Neils Bohr, but I had plenty tell our class that he was a nut, NOT FAIR.

Come again?

Originally posted by Lord Shaper
Come again?

One mustn't provoke the animals.

This is a pg-13 form, we shouldn't discuss such words as coming, yet again.

Originally posted by debbiejo
This is a pg-13 form, we shouldn't discuss such words as coming, yet again.

The vernacular in this day and age is "cumming" or "to cum".

Guys, stop it. w....... h....... i..........t.........e

sht...uff

Originally posted by Lord Shaper
Guys, stop it. W.....h....i....t....e

shtuff....

White stuff?

Eww, you are gross.

spiritually, we are the same as a seesaw, esp. with these duality arguments. if we ever establish balance, we do so knowing that both sides may have compromised it's higher status, the losing side being much more appreciative of not being at the bottom.

anyway, the other guy, in history, who had a bad rap was Alexander Hamilton, he was killed in a dual (I think it was Burr who did it, not sure). He was a strong force in est. our economic system in this country, but he was heckled as a son of a whore (at least when it comes to put downs, we are no different today then we were back then, collective-minded-yet-retarded/backwards), when George Washington was not a legit child neither. Don't know why they dismissed A.H., when his work offered us luxury.

Look, we can either heckle every new idea until a foreign country comes in and takes the very idea we seem to find amusing and uses it to advance themselves or we can grow up a bit.

wasn't there a book out a long time ago, that stated, something like "everything i learned about mankind, i learned in the 1st grade"? whatever the title, that says a lot about our social-maturity level.

What you need to do is to back up some of your thoughts with some good solid facts. It would help in your views. Even some solid based theories. 🙂

Originally posted by debbiejo
What you need to do is to back up some of your thoughts with some good solid facts. It would help in your views. Even some solid based theories. 🙂

You mean on the fact that we bring down people who do a lot for us?

1. Neils Bohr
2. Alexander Hamilton
3. Ayn Rand (even if I don't agree with all of her arguments b/c imo, her "looters" are none other then the folks who took over her dad's business, and she projected that entire unfairness into a series of novels that influenced western thought on capitalism and individualism).

I can name much more, and not just entertianers (mostly actors/singers).

I made a mistake, with the seesaw analogy, the one on the top is the one worse off, if there ever is an imbalance (I stated that at perfect equalibrium, both sides compromised it's "higher" status, but the one on the top is always going to come down hard at the will of the other end of the argument). ..."the losing side being much more appreciative of not being at the top, knowing it's now at the mercy of the one at the bottom"😉..it's a twist that we learn physically about our spiritual mind, it's counter-intuitive, which happens a lot with "spiritual" matters.

We should stop heckling new ideas, that kind of thinking puts us backwards, as of now, we are forward in technology, but we have to be careful not to be arrogant.

There is more than the media, and bias opinions which go with that. And a person cannot generalize either. That's all.

I enjoy your open mindedness and questions, because I am always questioning things myself. But if I could suggest, do an in depth study before you make a statement of probable truth......I like you. 🙂

I enjoy discussing things out of the box too sweety.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
You mean on the fact that we bring down people who do a lot for us?

1. Neils Bohr
2. Alexander Hamilton
3. Ayn Rand (even if I don't agree with all of her arguments b/c imo, her "looters" are none other then the folks who took over her dad's business, and she projected that entire unfairness into a series of novels that influenced western thought on capitalism and individualism).

And since you mentioned him in your opening post don't forget MC HAMMER.

I know he has done a lot for me, personally, more then Jesus and the Burger King combined.

ops, sorry if i didn't state that it can go either way...top or bottom, depending on who's meaner...but again, why do we enjoy seeing people at the bottom? (btw, God bless the Amish, they are great people, this photo makes me laugh b/c it goes against our intiution, esp. with the Amish girls, i think they only need a 7th or 8th grade education)

I never do, in fact I usually go for the under dog.........I don't know why....maybe it's Empathy. I'm very stong with that. So much so that I have had to learn to balance myself on my perceptions.