When Did it Become Acceptable to Bring Politic of Hate into SL?

[Drayke Newall]

8 hours ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

You meant to say omnipotent.  Read Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology, especially Volume Two.  He deals with it rather well.  

No, I meant Omniscient. Omniscient is the term used for being all knowing. Omnipotent is the term used to describe a being as all powerful. Unrelated, is Omnipresent where God is everywhere at the same time. These are the 3 Omni words to describe what encompasses Gods entire power.

This issue with Omniscience is that with God being all knowing, that is to say; knowing the past, present and future and all things, Free Will becomes an issue. It has been argued for millennia as to how Omniscience and Free Will can exist together. This is why the article linked by Scylla incorporates philosophers theories dating back to before the 13th century.

The foremost reason why it is argued, is because if god is all knowing (Omniscient) he then knew that before the fall or creating the universe; Eve would eat the apple, pass it to Adam, mankind would fall, sin would enter, mankind would be punished and that suffering and gracelessness would exist until he would sacrifice his only son. To put it another way if he is all knowing he could have stopped it all at the beginning but didn't.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Drayke Newall

[Amanda Crisp]

The really sad thing is that people tend to conflate “disagree” with “hate”.

Civilized people can respectfully disagree, but civilization is a choice.

[Seicher Rae]

2 hours ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

4 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

I don't understand people who come into a thread just to say they don't like the conversation in the thread. Ummm... so... don't read it? Is my usual thought.

I have a couple of guilty-pleasure tv shows, and I casually follow them on Facebook. It never ceases to amaze me how many people come into the comments just to say, "I don't like the show. I don't watch it." Again, I think, Why are you posting here, then?

I think it is great how this thread has woven in and out. It is like group monkey mind (a meditation term). If it gets boring (and it did in places) I stop reading (which I did in places). Concept.

I think that is an excellent suggestion.  If you see a profile inworld that you don't like, desist from reading it.  If you think the profile violates the TOS, AR it.  

The least productive thing to do would be to enter the forums and post defamatory terms like the one in red above.  It is unlikely that SL will ban a person just because they are politically in favor of an elected official.   

Two, totally different subjects. I was talking about *someone* who comes into a 20+ page thread and gripes that it is all, what was the word? Drift?

Irony is dead, and self-awareness is a wonderful thing.

As to the OP and your gripes, that's all they are, gripes. If the OP was against the rules of this Forum it would have been removed posthaste by the moderators. As long as people are semi-civil, by Internet standards, then the General Discussion subforum is the place to discuss non-SL themes, such as politics, philosophy, and religion and heaven only knows what else this little thread has wandered into.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Seicher Rae

[Beth Macbain]

2 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

To put it another way if he is all knowing he could have stopped it all at the beginning but didn't.

And therefore a HUGE a-hole.

God doesn’t exist, but if he did he’d be the absolute worst. (IMNSHO)

[Drayke Newall]

15 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

And therefore a HUGE a-hole.

Lol. Don't even get me started of how the book of Job details how Satan has to ask Gods permission to tempt Job, thereby leading to the thought or reasoning that does this mean that Satan also asked permission to tempt Eve in the first place. Whilst the book of Job puts forth this reasoning and every other person would state that seeing as it is written it is evidence and fact (as well as him asking the same permission in Peter), people still say 'oh that was a unique case'. Given this arguable evidence then, despite even the free will issue, God would have known what was going to befall mankind and even worse possibly gave permission for it to happen.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Drayke Newall

[Desiree Moonwinder]

On 1/7/2020 at 10:54 AM, Tolya Ugajin said:

Me, I just sit back and laugh as the world burns, knowing that the Aristotlean progression of governments is inevitable, and that in a generation or two the decrepit democracies of the West will collapse into new monarchies (albeit with a shint new name, since "king" is passe).

Are you speaking of Plato's Republic?  I rather liked that.  I don't see the work as prophecy, but yeah, its likely predictive of what we are going through.  

[Selene Gregoire]

1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

(IMNSHO)

I dunno. Sounds pretty durn honest to me. 

 

[Blaise Glendevon]

9 hours ago, AmandaKeen said:

The really sad thing is that people tend to conflate “disagree” with “hate”.

Civilized people can respectfully disagree, but civilization is a choice.

There are some things, however, that are not matters for disagreement. To go back to the initial post regarding the MAGAt the OP encountered, the human rights of asylum seekers is not a matter of opinion. The rights of trans kids in public education is not a matter of opinion. The existence of global climate change and the need for restrictions on industry to protect the quality of air and water in the communities around them is not a matter of opinion. The dangers of both coal mining and coal use when alternative fuels exist is not a matter of opinion. The discriminatory practices of police, prosecutors, and prison correctional officers in regards to race are not a matter of opinion. The overreach of the military industrial complex into the pockets of the federal government isn't a matter of opinion.

You can't just 'agree to disagree' with bigotry and greed. 

[Mollymews]

10 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

The foremost reason why it is argued, is because if god is all knowing (Omniscient) he then knew that before the fall or creating the universe; Eve would eat the apple, pass it to Adam, mankind would fall, sin would enter, mankind would be punished and that suffering and gracelessness would exist until he would sacrifice his only son. To put it another way if he is all knowing he could have stopped it all at the beginning but didn't.

the omniscient vs free will paradox is predicated on: if (god == omniscient)

nowhere in the bible scriptures does it say: god == omniscient

the scriptures do say a lot about what god does knows, but every mention of what god knows is qualified by a circumstance

the 'if' is a non-scriptural addition to create the paradox

[Alwin Alcott]

10 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

if he is all knowing he could have stopped it all at the beginning but didn't.

people should stop reading the book as history .. it's about belief and how people project that on their circumstances, in most cases to explain what they weren't able to point at other natural causes (yet).

[Amanda Crisp]

2 hours ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

There are some things, however, that are not matters for disagreement. To go back to the initial post regarding the MAGAt the OP encountered, the human rights of asylum seekers is not a matter of opinion. The rights of trans kids in public education is not a matter of opinion. The existence of global climate change and the need for restrictions on industry to protect the quality of air and water in the communities around them is not a matter of opinion. The dangers of both coal mining and coal use when alternative fuels exist is not a matter of opinion. The discriminatory practices of police, prosecutors, and prison correctional officers in regards to race are not a matter of opinion. The overreach of the military industrial complex into the pockets of the federal government isn't a matter of opinion.

You can't just 'agree to disagree' with bigotry and greed. 

But we can address it like mature adults without trying to personally demonize anyone who is not perfectly in alignment with our point of view.

It *feels* good to take a virtue-signaling, morally-superior stance, but it also reduces any chance of swaying the objects of ridicule over to a different way of thinking. If we fail to persuade, we only guarantee that the squabble becomes generational. This requires great patience.

Personally, in RL I’m against trying to mute/de-platform people who disagree with me; I *want* to have the discussion if I feel like an idea has merit. Also because persuasion is more powerful than shunning or shaming. Does it always work? No, but I value my own freedom of thought and expression enough not to want to deny it to others.

There are limits....things like pornography and “not suitable for all ages” topics of course.

Both major political parties in the USA are rolling in the gutter and catering to their particular mobs, so are the governments of some other “secular democracies”. This is why I prefer not to drag that stuff into my Second Life 🙂

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by AmandaKeen

[Tolya Ugajin]

8 hours ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

Are you speaking of Plato's Republic?  I rather liked that.  I don't see the work as prophecy, but yeah, its likely predictive of what we are going through.  

No.  Aristotle asserted that governments go through a repeating cycle.  Monarchy degrades into tyranny, which is overthrown by an aristocracy, which degrades into oligarchy, which is overthrown and a democracy established, which degrades yet again (I forget what that stage is called), which is then overthrown when the people decide they need one strong person to lead them and the cycle begins again.  We'd be in the degraded democracy stage, where "the people" are constantly being manipulated through bribery ("free stuff") and fear and politics is spinning out of control.  Plato built his theoretical Republic from scratch and assumed total control over all aspects of life and society and information was possible.

[Tolya Ugajin]

13 hours ago, Derek Torvalar said:

"It has been a grand adventure to be so hated by those who I hold in such contempt."

Sir Roger

For Tolya 😀

lol not sure what prompted this, but I rather like it.  Roger who?

[Pebbles Bagley]

On 1/6/2020 at 2:45 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

In the final analysis, you can do more (if "doing something" is what you want) by being a positive and rational voice, and an exemplar for the things in which you believe. Be the change you want to see, right?

Very true. ❤️

[Drayke Newall]

1 hour ago, Mollymews said:

the omniscient vs free will paradox is predicated on: if (god == omniscient)

nowhere in the bible scriptures does it say: god == omniscient

the scriptures do say a lot about what god does knows, but every mention of what god knows is qualified by a circumstance

the 'if' is a non-scriptural addition to create the paradox

Actually there are many instances where it shows god as omniscient. To many for me to list and all can easily be found. They also don't come with a qualified circumstance. Additionally prophecy that it said comes from God implies he knows the future.

That said I agree mainly with what Alwin said. The bible is part history of a civilisation as well as their ideologies of trying to explain the unknown at the time.

[Pebbles Bagley]

On 1/6/2020 at 3:47 PM, Garnet Psaltery said:

Abandoning your premium account because LL allows people to express opinions you don't like? 

I got it back after some of the feedback I received (it was very easy to do it since I paid it for the year). Thanks ❤️

 

[Pebbles Bagley]

On 1/6/2020 at 4:34 PM, LittleMe Jewell said:

"downgrading" status, you can open a ticket and have them stop the cancellation.

 

Yes, I did that ❤️

 

[Blaise Glendevon]

56 minutes ago, AmandaKeen said:

virtue-signaling

This is one of the weirdest projections from the right. The idea that one can only stand up for an ideal or a cause for attention. 

[Tolya Ugajin]

19 hours ago, Seicher Rae said:

I'm actually still coming to grips with labelling myself as a liberal.   Way back when I self-identified as a centrist Republican. My political views have not changed, other than to become a little more honed, a little more nuanced. The old saw used to be that people get more conservative as they get older. Apparently, even though I'm kind of inert, I'm bucking that situation. So while I sat still the world moved and I am now a "wild-eyed" liberal. Go figger.

Most likely because you're struggling with the negative connotations that "liberal" has had since the 70's.  While I'm happy to use "liberal" and "conservative" in common shorthand sense, they're not very precise terms.  And, you as a person (or anyone as a person) are going to tend to be all over the place depending on the issue.  You may be liberal in terms of LGBTQ issues, but fiscally conservative, more "liberal"in terms of gun rights (as in restrictive, another fine way the word is twisted) but conservative on defense issues.  There is an interesting Fakebook page called "classically liberal" that you might wish to visit, as it sounds like the way they define that term is similar to how you may identify yourself.

[Seicher Rae]

1 minute ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Most likely because you're struggling with the negative connotations that "liberal" has had since the 70's.  While I'm happy to use "liberal" and "conservative" in common shorthand sense, they're not very precise terms.  And, you as a person (or anyone as a person) are going to tend to be all over the place depending on the issue.  You may be liberal in terms of LGBTQ issues, but fiscally conservative, more "liberal"in terms of gun rights (as in restrictive, another fine way the word is twisted) but conservative on defense issues.  There is an interesting Fakebook page called "classically liberal" that you might wish to visit, as it sounds like the way they define that term is similar to how you may identify yourself.

Possibly. It's a good theory. But I don't think it applies. It is more what I was talking about: That I stood "still" and the world moved and my label with it. I never had terribly negative feelings about the word liberal, or positive ones for conservative...they were just where the slider fell on the continuum. Right now the label that fits is "OMG Never Trump Again!" I don't believe in Satan or God, but as I said earlier, I'd vote for Satan as the lesser of two evils.  

[Janet Voxel]

Reading this thread like

 

[Tolya Ugajin]

1 hour ago, Seicher Rae said:

Possibly. It's a good theory. But I don't think it applies. It is more what I was talking about: That I stood "still" and the world moved and my label with it. I never had terribly negative feelings about the word liberal, or positive ones for conservative...they were just where the slider fell on the continuum. Right now the label that fits is "OMG Never Trump Again!" I don't believe in Satan or God, but as I said earlier, I'd vote for Satan as the lesser of two evils.  

People always think they stay the same.  It's pretty unlikely - how we see the world evolves with life experience.  When you say you've become more "nuanced", it likely means you've drifted one way or another, for instance.

I, however, am as constant as the North star...

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, AmandaKeen said:

4 hours ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

....bigotry and greed. 

It *feels* good to take a virtue-signaling, morally-superior stance

I don't see that Blaise was virtue-signalling with her concerns.

Virtue-signalling is driven by vanity and self-aggrandizement, not concern with others. When you accuse someone of virtue signalling you are accusing them of a kind of hypocrisy, saying they are not concerned with the issues but instead are concerned with displaying themselves in the best possible light.
It's a huge insult to accuse another of this, and also a way to dismiss another's ideas instead of attempting to debate the issue. As such, it is an ad hominem attack.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

23 hours ago, Desiree Moonwinder said:

I am the first to admit that I can't stay completely up to date on luxury belief systems; doubtless I'll err in some detail.  My understanding is that the new definition of "hate speech" is anything that the political right says.  Likewise, the new definition of "violence" includes "hate speech."  This too will pass.  Luxury belief systems must evolve when the masses adopt them.  If the term "luxury belief" isn't familiar, use your search engine for keywords such as: "luxury beliefs"

Why are you equating a more liberal perspective on issues with the elite in society? The two do not automatically go together as this "luxury beliefs" concept implies.

[Luna Bliss]