The specter of death hovers above me as I painstakingly typo all the things, yet manage to upload this weeks episode. Big shout out to the Rat for his jumping in to hel… (AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH). What I feel was a very good analogy for self-selection as protection against subculture prejudice was turned into a bit – but I stand by my example – Chicken Fucker!
twosmokespodcast.com 
Beginning of discussion: What it comes down to is really removing emotion from discussion or even development of opinion. If we were Vulcan our discussions would be much more productive and social media would be more enjoyable. But seriously, if after reading a post we forced ourselves to respond logically there would be little blocking, name calling or flaming. I think if that gentleman who blocked you (Rat) felt compelled to explain how you crossed the line before blocking you he would not have. I don’t think he would have because he would had to consider reasons for your post and realize there could be more reasons for it then just dislike for a lifestyle. I wish we would all realize that there are very few of us that wish to appear hateful.
LikeLike
I used to be more like that. Back in the BBS days, things were alot more strictly moderated, so people were much more contemplative in their replies and reactions.
Sadly those old ways have been lost. The old civilities.
Hell indeed even the old ‘novelty’ that we were talking to a stranger miles away. Thats just gone. Now the sentiment is more ‘there are so many people on the internet I can (and should) block all of them that I can”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The more unsquare we get the more we resemble society as they were just before they failed. Quite a few of the ones that failed disappeared or were replaced. It is the result of success and can not be thwarted. I’m ready to discuss. 🙂
LikeLike
Nah lots of societies go through phases of decadence and survive. Its true that many HAVE descended into self indulgence never to return, but they survive often enough. Consider the roaring 20’s, the late 60’s early 70’s or even the 80’s. Each era with its liberties and enjoyments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But never have we entered such a physical and intellectual decay. Through all those eras you mentioned there were always children playing outside, enjoying sports, hanging out. I don’t think I have seen a kid on a bike in 4 or 5 years now much less had I needed to slow down so a group of kids playing ball could get off the street. Intellectually too. I grew up in an age where you had to read a book, go to the library, watch tv or a movie to learn something about some where else or science. My son has this at his fingertips right now but is no where near as well informed about the universe around him as I was at his age. Even if all I did was watch pbs because there was nothing else on as a kid I learned more then he has with the internet now days. Ease begets weakness no matter what category the ease is in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our problems started when our values no longer came from a divine source. As soon as we, as a society, come to the conclusion that values/morals are man made we can question them. Who are you to tell me this or that? Who are you to say what is right or wrong. When it come from man (even a majority) it can be questioned. A society that follows a set of rules that they believe come from a divine source is a society with more harmony. Currently, in America and Europe, with the decline of Christianity the unfaithful have all become dissidents. One of the negatives I think have resulted is mass shootings. America has always been armed but only recently have we seen a rash of mass shooting? Why? What changed? I think in a world that believes in hell folks (even mentally disabled who believe in hell) won’t do certain things. I don’t think we can believe in hell anymore and I think it shows.
LikeLike
I dont think you can make the case that Mass Shootings come from a lack of Faith, especially since several have had specifically faith based motivations and targets.
I also dont think that secular values are a problem, but a natural evolution to the codified morality of religion. As times change, there are things that just arent covered in the bible and man is left on his own to build out what he thinks is Right and Wrong, Good and Evil.
The harmony, if any, is that there is at least a central source to which they can appeal, but it DOESNT guarantee harmony. Look at all the ‘branches’ of christianity that came from Catholocisim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I disagree. Even the religious seem to have less fear of hell. The religion of old was MUCH more fire and brimstone then acceptance and love. What is the change more obvious then the lack of fear of a hell? If you have some other societal change you can mention that would affect this type of thing I would love to hear it. LOL When I was a little kid if you asked why I didn’t do something the answer came easy. I don’t wanna go to hell. My cousins and classmates would have answered the same. I know that in my little circle that is the truth because we played that game all the time. We all went to catholic schools/christian schools, schools that prayed in the morning and church on Sunday. But like I said, if you have another answer to the question, “What has changed physiologically to the US and Europe in the last 40 years?” I would love to hear it.
LikeLike
Quantify… Everything is quantified. I think forcing a quantity on something can often destroy its real meaning. Before I explain let me try to describe my type of intelligence. I think there are four types of intelligence (go ahead and crush me later T): IQ, Cleverness (speed of association and relevance), Education and Conscientiousness (includes self awareness). I think I am low to average in IQ, low to average in cleverness, very low in Education but above average in conscientiousness (not a lot). I have good instincts. And that is why I don’t like the absolute quantifying of things. Those of us (I hope I do belong in that category) with a decent amount of conscientiousness use instinct or a more abstract(for lack of understanding) way of understanding things. And our predictions, solutions and assessments quite often turn out to be as accurate at times or even better then those who need to process everything in a systematic way. Especially in areas like human behavior or abstract out of the box thinking. My silly point is that when I hear you gents quantifying abstract things I start to twitch and say a problem solver of my type may have a simpler solution not reliant on some convoluted equation. I was only a kid when I new the idea a dark matter and later dark energy was a silly hypothesis simply because some scientists could accurately come up the weight of the universe without it. And the scientific community is just now starting to accept it as a whole (minus those whose career depends on that research of course). Another gift of the conscientious… seeing through bullshit.
LikeLike
Honestly? Ive all but given up on the idea that intrinsically ‘smart’ people exist.
I dont belive in intution. A hunch or a guess, or a vibe is almost NEVER how I make any decisions and the ones I have made in those modes have had dubious results to be sure 🙂
That said, there are non verbal ques that can alert a person to how another is feeling or thinking but it requires some familiarity. In short, your intuition is probably a PER check than an IQ check 🙂
Its an intersting question though. How WOULD one break down ‘IQ’ into other stats to make it more understandable. I might go with the following paradigm:
Memorization – The ability to internalize and recall information
Logic/Deduction – The ability to draw direct, sound conclusions from existing information
Synthesis – The ability to take 2 seemingly unrelated facts and find the inter-relationship
Association and Desociation – The ability to recognize ideas that are similar and different.
LikeLike
Then what is cleverness? I have met cleaver folks that other wise you wouldn’t think of as smart. There are folks almost completely unable to function in society without help that can memorize whole technical manuals. I think my 4 more accurately determine how successful a person may be in society. Anyone with a high level of one of the 4 I mentioned but lacking much of the other 3 can be successful in life. The 4 you mentioned have little bearing on this individually. I have listened to some comedians who are very clever but not otherwise very smart who have done pretty well. And at least on the difference and importance of IQ and Conscientiousness, Jordan Peterson would agree with me (or me him lol). I’ll bet if Carl Jung were alive today he would too if he was familiar with modern IQ studies.
LikeLike
South Korean males have to join the service for 2 years. I don’t agree it should be mandatory in America..
LikeLike
You guys mentioned good and evil/ right and wrong. I would like to introduce good and evil vs sin. If your religious your striving for a ticket to heaven. Not just trying to succeed on earth but float on up on your last day to some sort of paradise or peace. I think of it as an existence on a hot air balloon with desires of the flesh as the sand bags hanging on the side (I can’t spell ballace). There is flesh and spirit. Any desire of something oriented in the flesh such as sex without reason, alcoholism, love of food, just anything that distracts us from the pursuit of the spirit is a sin. Anything that puts flesh before spirit is a sin. Sin is the ballace that keeps us on earth (I believe reincarnation to be more likely then hell. Very little in the new testament contradicts this. Consider, “The wages of sin is death.” where every life ends in death the ascendance to heaven means there is no more death.) But this is all different than right and wrong. With doing as we please without hurting no one else means that in most cases we aren’t doing anything wrong but we still may be sinning. And that doing something good for personal gain may not be something divine or holy. Nothing done for selfish reasons can ever be holy. This causes the question: does the self serving attempt to get to heaving mean anyone trying to get there become a selfish sinner? That is answered by your internal need to glorify God or how much it is actually loved or needed by you and how much your motivated by fear instead. I should stop drinking.
LikeLike
I think it has more to do with an exhaustion of existence then either fear or desire. Gandhi had no desire for earthly things nor any fears presumably. BUT, Arjune was told by Krishna that he needed to go to war because it was his duty not becuase it was right or wrong. A pursuit of ones divine duty my be in fact the answer instead of just an earthly boardem.
LikeLike
Without sinking too far into the quagmire – if one were to regard admittance to heaven as important, then the acts required to get there are less outward facing than inward facing, correct? The idea of a cosmic balance not withstanding, if I am told that good deeds will get me to heaven, collect a huge amount of good deeds, and then get told that those deeds aren’t truly good because I did them solely to get into heaven – I might react poorly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But you would get another chance. 🙂
LikeLike
Thats alot to unpack but consider this instead:
If the spirit doesnt exist, then sin isnt a thing. What then?
The paradox of personal salvation makes an excellent case AGAINST altruism being the only good. Is there another good?
If Im supposed to help people….arent I a people?
LikeLike
With out the divine, you aren’t supposed to do anything. What you think of as good is good….good for you. With out the divine there are just man made rules and that is fallible and empty like the meaning of life. Our constitution would become meaning less because our God giving rights are no longer God given and there for no real reason to protect them. We can always shift from the rights of the one are less important the rights of the many. There for the one have no rights.
LikeLike
In the difference of race I think skin color is the least important of the differences.
LikeLike
Perhaps so, but as one of the few external indicators it is always in play.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, and probably the easiest reason for prejudice it could be considered the most important. So what I think is important means very little in the grand scheme of things. 🙂
LikeLike