What is being achieved by being silent? — Judaka

Maybe nothing, but we're about to find out.

I just think that it doesn’t make sense to call the act of selling or smoking weed a victimless activity if it often makes people very upset. — TheHedoMinimalist

Well, everyone on the planet is a victim then, because everyone gets upset about something. I just don't think the rest of the world has to walk around on egg shells because of a few thin-skinned individuals. It's better to create a society that's a little tougher, and a little more respectful of the rights of others. No one is forcing anyone to smoke pot or patronize a store. Internalize your costs and "mind your own business" is a good philosophy in my book.

Some things we want to forget, but those who forget the past . . .

If any harm is derived from seeing others smoke weed, or knowing that a dispensary exists in the neighborhood, it is entirely self-inflicted. The bellyacher is both perpetrator and victim. — NOS4A2

:100:

If someone is forced to participate in a corrupt system, is that person obligated to do the right thing? — Tex

Yes. The question is, what is the right thing? Sometimes that is living to fight another day. Sometimes that is staying out of jail to take care of loved ones. Sometimes corrupt systems know you are thinking all these thoughts and use your indecision against you. Sometimes doing the right thing is being the Gray Man, insurgency, guerilla ops, etc. Some people even convince themselves they are working for change within the system. As others have pointed out, a lot is situational and relative. Without specifics, it's hard to say. But not providing specifics can be smart.

Then again, you can always use philosophy to render you immobile with doubt about what is right. I've been doing that with regards to philanthropy. I'd love to sit around a fire with Melinda Gates for a few hours. Anyway, all the best.

doing the right thing in a corrupt system benefits that corrupt system — Tex

How so?

I think the analysis should include consideration of a reasonableness standard + a community standard + the rights the individual. If a reasonable person would be offended by it, and if a sizable percentage of the affected population in the community agree it should be outlawed, then there should be shown a compelling state interest, and legislated with the least intrusive method of accomplishing the goal. This might permit legalization of pot for use in the home, limits on the locations, hours, ages, sizes of stores, etc.

it seems that weed can harm other people because your family members may be upset about you using weed — TheHedoMinimalist

That's a no-go. First, that doesn't qualify as "harm." That's unreasonable. Your family may get upset if you date someone of another race or religion. So what? "Family upset" is irrelevant and I don't think it constitutes a reasonable standard.

many people may be upset to find out that they have a weed store in their neighborhood so it may create a public nuisance. — TheHedoMinimalist

That would be a zoning issue and should only be a consideration after proof that a nuisance would occur. Make a record, on evidence. Then find the least intrusive way of regulating the store(s).

cause a pretty significant amount of distress to others. — TheHedoMinimalist

That's a no-go. I've never heard of a "significant amount of distress" standard.

I think that arguing for weed legalization requires a more consequentialist sort of argument. — TheHedoMinimalist

I think the burden should upon those who object, not those who want to legalize weed.

But that's just me.

If a man of newsworthy importance speaks, — NOS4A2

Who's the gatekeeper on that? I am a man of newsworthy importance, but no one gives a shit. What do I have to do to get the gatekeepers to let me in? Perhaps I need money?

I wouldn’t expect a server to hide burgers from the menu if he doesn’t like beef. — NOS4A2

The server works for the restaurant. If it's veggie, then there is no beef to hide. If he doesn't like it, he can go work somewhere else.

It is often the case that people make arguments the journalist doesn’t like. They need not suppress those arguments. Period. — NOS4A2

This brings to mind my observations of the opposing sides, left and right. The left likes to take the worst the right has to offer and hold it up as the straw man representative of the right. The right does the exact same thing to the left. So, is a journalist to let both these stupid assholes have equal time? I don't think so. Oh, and if the market place of ideas is to have any currency, don't buy what you don't want, and don't listen to hucksters.

Since I already confessed to that crime you can't prosecute me for it a second time. — fishfry

It's kind of like the "War on Christmas." There isn't one. Nor is anyone prosecuting you. Having drifted off course, you might want to invoke hyperbole to distract, I'm not sure. But it would be easier to focus on the merits, rather than digress or try to start an argument that isn't there.

I say let everyone speak and let the market decide. I don't believe in gatekeepers. They have the worst track record of all. — fishfry

No one is stopping anyone from speaking. Everyone can speak until they are horse. But if they want to be heard, they should pony up and buy a microphone, per capitalism, ala Citizens United. Or we could reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and try to tweak it to be even more fair; and get money out of politics. Until then, welcome to gatekeeper land!

I'm not sure if you want to argue politics or agree with me about something. — fishfry

You just said I may be right. I am. You only grabbed that one sentence of mine out of context and you haven't read most of the thread.

So, to satisfy your curiosity on that point, we're not arguing the merits of any given political position. We're talking about gatekeepers, and whether or not "arguments" or "facts" deserve equal time.

Journalists report facts, as best they can be determined to be facts. Period. Argument is the province of commentary on the news. — tim wood

:100:

she cannot be held to have murdered her fetus? — tim wood

She cannot.

And if she cannot, can anyone else be, whether acting at her direction or not? — tim wood

Those acting at her direction cannot. As to those not acting at her direction, that decision would be up to the state. If the state deems life to begin at conception (or before), and if someone other than the mother and/or those acting at her direction, kills the baby in utero, I reckon that could be murder if the state wants it to be. I express no opinion on that. I would, however, be interested in the woman's opinion; Was she assaulted, battered? Are their civil damages she might be entitled to as a result of the loss?

Why should you settle for a precis from me when the thing itself is so easily accessible? — tim wood

I'll not ask you to tell me what Blackmun said. You've proven yourself capable of thinking on your own two feet.

Holt works for NBC News, does he not? — fishfry

He does.

Lester Holt works for a network with a demonstrated pattern of not believing in fairness. — fishfry

That may be. Maybe we should reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? Or, if you don't like it, buy them out. You know, capitalism and all that.

Or we could just tune in to that bastion of "fair and balanced" Fox News? Yeah, that's the ticket.

What definition would you give it, supposing it were to ground a law? — tim wood

On the range, we'd say when she drops. Once the kid is out of the women's body.

And do have have any complaints of note against Blackmun's reasoning in Roe v. Wade? — tim wood

I don't recall ever reading Roe v. Wade or Blackmun's reasoning. I've just heard it's well shy of birth so it's too conservative for me.

unfettered right." But to what, when, how, and under what circumstances? — tim wood

To kill her baby, anytime while it's in her body, any way she chooses, under any circumstances.

Are there other rights she or others might have, fettered or unfettered? — tim wood

She has the right to keep it if she wants. Others should not have a say until it's out of her body. At that time, I think she has a duty to either care for it, or turn it over to the state.

I always like to take things to the extreme and stipulate to the other side's argument as far as I can. Thus, I can say life begins at conception, or even before (I don't care; every sperm is sacred, every egg Devine, Monty Python). But there is a world of difference between life and the right thereto. Just as you can forfeit your "right" to life on the back end, so to your "right" to life can be deemed to have not yet vested on the front end. Both occur when "we" say so. That is "law".

So, as usual, I substitute my understanding of what should be (Natural Law), for that which "we" deem to be the case (law). I think a woman should have the unfettered right to do whatever the hell she wants with her "baby" up until parturition. At that point, I think she has a duty of care, even if that is only turning the spawn over to someone else who will care.

In that sense, a baby becomes a person in my philosophical sense when it ceases to be inside the mother's body.

As to the person in a coma, again, that revolves around a duty assumed, when it starts and when it ends. That duty can be legal, contractual, ethical, whatever; it relates to the people involved. Pick your poison.

Arrogance is the sail on the boat. Unfurl it and you'll go far. The person who believes humility is inherently good will stay at the dock and never know where she could have gone.

A wise man doesn't fake wisdom. He is the pure fool. Wisdom comes from crashing into the rocks. — frank

I like that, for some reason. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it's good.

The only question in my mind, is how to parse out guys like Trump. Is he the wisest man of all? He's got the arrogance down pat, he's a pure fool, and he's crashed into a metric shit ton of rocks. Maybe I'm not putting the pieces together properly.

One thing I strongly suspect (but cannot prove) is that no rock has ever crashed into him. That might be where true (not fake) humility comes from.

Of all the men I've ever seen in public service, I think they have, at one time or another in their past, maybe even on the elementary school yard, been punched square in the face, and hard. I don't think some folks have ever had that happen. I think some have been surrounded by a posse who steers clear, not out of fear of the individual, but maybe fear of his daddy, or simple cowardice, or a desire to fit in with the posse.

Thinking out loud.

I like the old saw: "A town too small to support a lawyer can always support two."

Can you give an example of the ones over whom you are entitled to rule? Name names and justify your claim to be among the gatekeepers. — fishfry

First, where did you get the word "rule"? We were talking about media and the news and whether they should provide equal time to 1. anti-intellectuals, stupid people, etc. and 2. how many sides they should let in (for there are often more than two).

I think we were talking about Holt. There's a name for you. But you could sub in any who work for private-for-profit outfits that get to pick and choose who they want to give their time to. That would make them the gatekeepers.

You don't need to tell me about the distinction between intelligence and wisdom, or the "gravitas" that has caused so many problems in this world. I don't expect you to read all I've written on this forum, and I don't know how to link or even where to find it, but I've thrashed that issue extensively and you and I are in accord.

Z is weak and stupid because he is aggressive? — Judaka

No.

Or because he is motivated by the inferences he can make when being aggressive? — Judaka

No.

Can someone really become weak and stupid just because you don't like what they're doing? — Judaka

No.

what you're doing is no different than Z, making assertions based on how convenient it'd be if it were true. — Judaka

The only assertion I'm making is that Y cannot complain about X without being X.

Is your weak/stupid, strong/wise dynamic, just a way for you to assert control over your environment? — Judaka

No.

The prerequisites of these terms are defined by your ideals but you retain their conventional meaning? — Judaka

No.

When you call someone weak, what you really mean is some specific, non-standard prerequisites have been met but when you call someone weak, that comes with the cultural power associated with the word. — Judaka

No.

Nobody wants to be called weak, but probably nobody cares about meeting your specific prerequisites, based on ideals they don't follow. Best of both worlds, right? — Judaka

No.

According to my definition. — Judaka

Yes.

how do you determine whether someone is / is being weak or stupid? — Judaka

I ask myself, are they complaining? Are they judging? Are they setting up straw men with inferences about another's argument that were not made?

I don't see how you can assert Z must be X, I don't understand why you're X if you can't convince a buffoon like Trump, as if Trump hasn't ignored very competent, intelligent and accomplished people at every turn? — Judaka

I'm going to try some extracts in aid of my trying to help you understand my thinking. If I fail, it just humbles me. That can be a good thing:

because he is aggressive?
because he is motivated by the inferences
because you don't like
what you're doing is
how convenient
just a way for you to assert
defined by your ideals
you retain
what you really mean
prerequisites have been met
comes with the cultural power
Nobody wants
nobody cares
based on ideals
Best of both worlds, right?
According to my definition.
You don't need to respond to that
you can assert
you can't convince
as if Trump hasn't ignored
intelligent and accomplished

Complaint, I think, can manifest itself in different ways. I used to monitor a conservative echo-chamber safe-space, composed largely of men whose professions are widely seen as the exclusive province of strong men. These men spent a great deal of time complaining about people they perceived as weak. I've already discussed how incongruous that seemed to me. However, when strong men leave the safety of a safe-room echo-chamber full of confirmation bias, and go out into the world, among those they complain about, their complaint often changes from outright bitching to an internal struggle with frustration and the constant inferring of what these "others" must be thinking, or what they must be like, all based upon strong man's perception of these others as weak. If anger is to be checked from expression as aggression, this man must control himself. But once he returns to the safety of his safe room, the lid comes off and he whines like a bitch while his support network comforts him with a bunch of "me too"s.

The same thing can happen with those who are widely viewed as wise. I am not as familiar with this situation, but it's not hard for me to imagine frustration with a student who "just doesn't get it." We can make up all kinds of reasons why we think another must be thinking what they are thinking (or not thinking), especially when that other lacks an ability to clearly articulate their thoughts. The patience of the best teacher can be sorely tested, especially when a student is disrupting the ability of other students to learn. That teacher, like the strong man, can tap down the frustration, save it for later, and unload on his peers in the teachers lounge.

The mistake that is often made by these complainers, and inferrers (new word I just made up), is that, when in the safe-space, they perceive all nodding heads as being in agreement. Closer inspection, though, might reveal that some of the nodding heads are in sympathy with Y as he is being X, and not necessarily in agreement with him on the merits of his complaint. Whenever I am in such a room, I like to look around and see who is being silent, observing. And while I don't know what they are thinking, and I won't infer anything based upon their silence, I certainly cannot toss them in with the others who complain and infer. I'm sure you've heard the old saying (paraphrased) "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." What I'm getting at is something like that.

So, complaint, I think, can manifest itself in different ways. One of those ways is to infer without reason. To set up straw men that are easy to knock down; To find it impossible to understand the thoughts of another without telling them what they must be arguing/meaning/thinking in order for one to make sense of what they don't understand; To formulate questions, no matter how sincere, in a format which infers to the other what the answer must be.

Side bar digression: These guys would often return from the world and tell the group what the limp-wristed, latte-drinking, skinny-jeaned, libtard must have been thinking when he saw him do X that day. I remember the idea that you never know what another person is going through, or what they've done. And I also remember thinking about these tough guys and what character traits they found admirable. And when I'd sum-total those traits and look around for someone I thought came closest to the embodiment of strength and wisdom as they themselves define it, I often came up with a little woman.

Anyway, I've been rambling on this morning. If I have not made myself clear, that's on me.

Well, it took us a while, but we got there eventually. — Ciceronianus the White

Well, we still have the rub, but there's no sense beating on that poor horse. Best to you, counselor.

What would ideally be a law, or what we hope the law and legal systems would be, are different from what is the law and what the legal system is, here and now. I don't think this can reasonably be disputed, — Ciceronianus the White

I would not only agree, but I would say that rests in competition for understatement of the millennium. :grin:

and I think that is in essence all Austin and Ciceronianus said in the OP. — Ciceronianus the White

I thought they were negating an assumed standard. That was the rub.

Z could be arguing on the superiority — Judaka

Z = X.

what's important are the feelings he evokes in himself — Judaka

I think that what's important is identifying our own Z (X) feelings that we invoke in ourselves when dealing with Z (X). I think that would be so very much more helpful in understanding how to deal with or think about ourselves and Z (X).

Do you have any advice on how we could identify Z? — Judaka

I think that Z (X) generally sticks out like a sore thumb and is thus easy to identify. It is identifying the Z (X) in ourselves that is the hard part. To do that, my advice would be to try to carry/lead Z (X). That would show how Z (X) we are. If we can then lead by example, that might very well be by silence, especially if they don't want to be carried or lead.

A great test for me would be Trump. My Y advice is to try to help him. I don't think he thinks he needs help. And my inability to help him, even if he wanted my help, shows just how weak I am. Thus, I try to remain silent and not judge. That is extremely difficult for me. It's like loving my enemy. Regardless, sometimes silence is the best example.

Silence does not mean one cannot act when called for. If a rabid dog is fixing to attack, you can shoot him, and you can do so without judgement of the poor creature's sickness.

We still agree X = weak/stupid, right? Z = my theoretical aggressor, Y = strong/wise. — Judaka

Yes. Z=X. I think where you may be missing my point is that human beings are sometimes X and sometimes Y. When we see ourselves in this humble light, we find empathy, understanding, and our "humanity" (I hate that latter word, but that's another discussion). It's really hard to be judgmental about X when your efforts toward Y show just how X you are. That is why Z is really just X.

I think it's futile to insist on the "reality" of that which makes no difference. — Ciceronianus the White

It's oft been said that ideals and aspirations are futile. This is where man's hopes and dreams run into "might makes right" in the mind of might. That is why I agreed with your post on the day-to-day practice of law. Any work is much easier when one is allowed to let themselves off the hook. The attorney gets to argue that he was merely engaged in the zealous advocacy of his client's interest. The investment banker gets to argue his fiduciary responsibility to his clients. Hell, soldiers don't even get that kind of slack. "Fog of war" only gets you so far. But money legislates such exemptions for the professions. Nevertheless, just because Natural Law is often perverted by the law does not mean it does not exist.

The hierarchy exists in the mind of the aggressor, whether it exists in any other form or not. — Judaka

Hence, Z=X.

You can call a man weak and a "bitch" or say a professor was being toxic without trying to emphasise how you're different - and better. — Judaka

Indeed. Z=X regardless. Hence silence. Any perceived difference would make me X, which I am.

However, isn't this inference basically necessary for your comments to make sense, how can you condemn people if you're no better? — Judaka

No. To make that assumption infers condemnation.

Doesn't it only make sense if you're above their behaviour? — Judaka

No. It makes sense regardless of me being X.

And isn't it necessary for you to put these "fakes" in their place? — Judaka

No. Hence silence.

Isn't that kind of what you've been doing here in this thread? — Judaka

No. That would infer judgement.

There is no Z. But if we were to insist, then Z=X, regardless of how Z perceives himself. The question is, if Z thinks he is Y, how would Y conduct himself in accord with Y?

If we lead/carry those we might think of as weak and stupid, we confirm our own weakness and stupidity in the process; we seed our own humility. There is nothing more humbling than true leadership, especially by example, and especially when that example calls for silence, empathy and understanding.

There can be no compounding or reinforcing of a hierarchy that does not exist.

In sum, if and when one starts feeling Y, they just need to lead/carry.

My thoughts were penned some time ago in consideration of masculine toxicity. I saw men, who are widely perceived (especially by themselves) as strong; I saw them complaining. At first I was embarrassed for them. Then, when I perceived them as weak, I realized it was not my place to point out how bitching made them a bitch. I resolved to lead by example and not complain. Silence.

I saw the same thing, from an intellectual standpoint, in school. Where a professor, widely perceived as wise, would use questioning to have a student walk him or herself into a corner and slap themselves. The professor, thinking he was using the Socratic method, had no genuine curiosity in his questions. Another form of toxicity. Using logic as a weapon. I resolved to only ask questions that I was sincerely curious about, and in seeking the insight of others on the matter.

Do I perceive myself as Y for having these insights, and for trying to put them into practice? No. If I ever do, I just consider loving my enemy. That brings me down to earth, hard.

whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry. — Ciceronianus the White

And that is our enquiry.

The belief that the law must conform to an "assumed standard" of some kind, and isn't the law if it does not, ignores the law; — Ciceronianus the White

It doesn't ignore the law (one can't ignore a stick across the back), it just refuses to accept it as law (because it fails to conform to an assumed standard).

It leads to a fundamental ignorance of the nature of the law and its operation. — Ciceronianus the White

It fully understands the nature of the law (pretense) and it's operation (stick).

That's why they call it virtue signaling. The worst people spend the most time telling you how good they are. — fishfry

That always crossed my mind every time I saw a little crucifix around the neck of a political pundit on T.V. Of course it's easy to hide behind the alleged truth of it, but when actions seem so "un-Jesus like", I'm forced to wonder. :smirk:

Before you get bent out of shape , you’re right. — Joshs

LOL! I'm not bent out of shape. I'm trying to help. I'm struggling with this shit but I'm most definitely not emotional about it. It's an intellectual exercise for me to try to figure out the wisdom behind loving an enemy, however defined.

What does insecurity spring from? Is it irreducible, or it it the manifestation of difficulties in making sense of social situations, in relating to the perspectives of others? There is no hostility, aggression, anger, condemnation without insecurity , but there is no insecurity without the experience of failure to relate to the thinking of others, and this includes our understanding of how they regard us and why. This failure to relate isn’t a personality trait or character issue , but an existential, situational issue. — Joshs

I agree, wholeheartedly. It's all that humanity, relatability, understandability. No one is exempt. Hence the struggle for the strong and wise to refrain from becoming not strong or not wise.

What Im getting at is that I believe there are
more satisfying philosophical approaches out there than the ones which support a ‘love your enemy’ narrative. They begin from a better grounding in how to understand human drives, motives, intentions and values and thus what causes individual human values to differ from each other. — Joshs

That could very well be true. I speak from my own personal experience. If find the idea loving one's enemy to be the most counter-intuitive, difficult, un-me possible state of affairs. However, I have always been attracted to the counter-intutive (often finding the truth to be counter-intuitive) and I've always liked a challenge to become a better person. So, if some yogi on a hill top, or some Christian says to do X, I say, I'll give that a try. Therefor, I struggle with the notion and I try to find the wisdom in it. My intuition tells me it's a good thing, but I like to make it cognitive and reduce it to writing. As stated in my OP, it's a work in progress.

The only thing I came up with in a search of my writings was this, from about a year ago:

"The ultimate test is the ability to carry a complainer who thinks he’s strong and wise, and who does not perceive himself in need of help. In that case, rather than accord or contest the complaint, it is best to demonstrate silence. If one is to love the enemy, they’d probably start there. That is the heaviest load of all, and calls for the strongest and wisest man, with the broadest shoulders."

and

"Love is truth. It is counterintuitive that loving an enemy is easy. It seems like it would be hard until you do it. Demonstration of silence may be the only way to carry an enemy upon your shoulders. Speaking up is not only and act, but it does not interfere with other action. It can incite action. A demonstration of silence is not only an act, but it does not interfere other action. It can improve action. But complaint! Ah, complaint."

So yeah, clearly not finished. Who knows why my result will be, if any.

If good acts are done for show and reputation, the 'good' is no longer the motivation. — Tom Storm

:100: As has been said, integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking. If one were to do it otherwise, then it might be done as "leadership by example." But even then, it's better to let others (beneficiaries or unconnected) blow your trumpet.

“If, rather than getting angry or condemning another who wrongs me, I respond with loving forgiveness, my absolution of the other presupposes my hostility toward them. I can only forgive the other's trespass to the extent that I recognize a sign of contrition or confession on their part. Ideals of so-called unconditional forgiveness, of turning the other cheek, loving one's oppressor, could also be understood as conditional in various ways. In the absence of the other's willingness to atone, I may forgive evil when I believe that there are special or extenuating circumstances which will allow me to view the perpetrator as less culpable (the sinner knows not what he does). I can say the other was blinded or deluded, led astray. My offer of grace is then subtly hostile, both an embrace and a slap. I hold forth the carrot of my love as a lure, hoping thereby to uncloud the other's conscience so as to enable them to discover their culpability. In opening my arms, I hope the prodigal son will return chastised, suddenly aware of a need to be forgiven. Even when there is held little chance that the sinner will openly acknowledge his sin, I may hope that my outrage connects with a seed of regret and contrition buried deep within the other, as if my `unconditional' forgiveness is an acknowledgment of God's or the subliminal conscience of the other's apologizing in the name of the sinner.” — Joshs

That was all added after my last post. I respond here by simply reiterating what I said in response to the OP: It really brings to mind the term "insecurity." It's natural, it's human, it's understandable that you struggle with these concerns, but it seems to me that it all springs from insecurity; a concern with how you want to be perceived by yourself or by others.

How to think the meaning of the word ‘enemy’ that is not already fraught with affects of alienation and threat. — Joshs

Hence the extreme. The title of the thread is "Aggression motivated by inference." You appear to be starting with aggression, while I am starting with the inference. Whether or not your inference results in aggression, you are making all these inferences based on your understanding of the meaning of terms which are not being used in the sense you apply to them. You infer hostility and aggression to my use of the terms when none is there. Don't infer *if* such is the seat of aggression, opposition or, at least, misunderstanding or disagreement. When I say enemy, I refer to an extreme of opposition. I suppose we could all sing Kumbaya but that is not we are not talking about here. At least I don't think the OP is.

To
the extent that we find it necessary to use a word like ‘ enemy’ to deceive another, we are still in the midst of a kind of crisis of empathy. — Joshs

Again, you infer deceit.

Only when we no longer have to label
the other as ‘ enemy’ do we truly find ourselves free of our puzzlement and failure to understand
the other. — Joshs

Again, give me another label and I'm happy to use it. However, if one can love their enemy, then it seems to me that everything else is a lesser-included situation. The problem starts not with the terms themselves, but the subjective inferences drawn from them. So, to avoid you having an incorrect inference, by all means, I beg you, give me a term satisfactory to you. Otherwise, you will have to return to your fire and sing Kumbaya with those who are in accord. That will not help you with those "others" because we are not all one (at least from a temporal, sense of interhuman relations).

they only describe limits of capability in a non-moral sense? — Joshs

In the search I'm engaged in, this would be the case.

I don't expect you to go read my post in thread on pronouns, but there I address my disinclination to allow others to set the definitions of debate. However, as previously stated here, I'm willing to make a concession. You pick any terms you want me to use when referring to the opposite of strong and wise. I will try to use them. A quick digression though: If we are to stipulate that weak and stupid are judgements based in hostility, would not strong and wise be judgements based on some other equally irrelevant considerations beyond the scope of my point? That question was rhetorical and does not need an answer. It was only submitted to show how I'm trying to get beyond judgement and get back to how one might choose to relate to another, especially a perceived enemy. How to love an enemy? That is the logical extreme of all the less extreme conditions of man that we might find along the way.

Its not the correctness or incorrectness of the terms Im
focusing on, it’s that they are terms of hostility masquerading as neutral descriptions. — Joshs

When you use the word "masquerading" you are indeed focusing on the correctness or incorrectness of the terms.

You’re describing what you believe are objective character flaws, but I see our judgements of other people’s ‘character flaws’ as typically forms of hostility. — Joshs

I don't believe weakness or stupidity are character flaws. As stated in my OP, they are understandable, relatable and human.

but I see our judgements of other people’s ‘character flaws’ as typically forms of hostility. — Joshs

I don't.

See my terms for anger in my previous post on this thread. — Joshs

Your terms for anger are not relevant to my post on moving beyond anger in pursuit of a strong and wise response to it, and other human, relatable, understandable characters.

‘weak’ and ‘stupid’. It sounds like hostility is embedded in your articulation of the issue. If we could just get people to stopacting so stupid, weak and condemnable we could solve the issue of aggression. — Joshs

I use weak and stupid as a short hand for the opposite of strong and wise. If there are other, more palatable terms, then sub those in, apply them to me and press on with what every one knows is intended, regardless of the incorrectness of the terms used. Personally, I'm fine we being referred to as weak or stupid when the shoe fits. As a human, it often does. There is no hostility in it. Maybe a weak vocabulary, or a politically incorrect one, but no hostility.

As I read that, one word keeps coming to mind: insecurity.

Insecurity is understandable; relatable; human. I've tried to run this to ground by going to a logical extreme.

Where I believe strong cannot complain about weak, and wise cannot complain about stupid, it raises the question of how the strong and wise are to related to others without violating these principles and therefor exhibiting their own weakness and stupidity (humanity) in doing so.

It seems the strong must necessarily carry the weak, and the wise must necessarily question the stupid with sincere curiosity in the hopes of learning.

But that leaves one confronting the case of a weak person who refuses to be carried, or the stupid person who refuses to be questioned. How then does the strong and the wise relate? One answer is, obviously, they don't. Instead, they demonstrate a humble silence and inaction.

However, the strong and wise may want to explore this relationship anyway, so they adopt theoretical weak and stupid people to engage in hypotheticals that will, in turn, help the strong and wise deal with a real life situation that may one day present it self; a situation where humble silence and inaction is not a strong or wise course of proceeding.

This brings us to the logical extreme referenced above: How does one love his enemy? I've been working on this, and I have some ideas. I actually wrote them down somewhere. I'll have to go try and find them. You got my juices flowing again on that line of inquiry. Thanks.

I've read the whole thread. It's not about catching up, I just can't see where you've answered that question. — Isaac

Oaky Dokey.

So when you were a lawyer you thought differently about law? — Isaac

No. I thought exactly the same then as I do now. That is why I left. I loved law school, because it was all theoretical and aspirational and foundational. But I should have done the clinics and whatnot.

So you are/were a practising lawyer and you refuse to acknowledge certain laws as law. — Isaac

Operative word is "were."

A link then perhaps, page number, quick summary...? I don't know how the site is currently fixed, but I don't think we're running that short on space just yet. — Isaac

It is not site that is short on space. I'm just short on the desire to go fetch your reading for you or regurgitate it here. I don't mean to be insulting, but really, catch yourself up.