Does "love" mean no disagreements?

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:34 pm

I do find the problem of declaring eminent domain for no other purpose than to increase tax revenue to be a problem and I am glad the Supreme Court has agreed to rule on this matter.

I dislike taxpayer subsidization of any kind of business. Sports teams are a good example. The taxpayers build the plant (stadium), give it to the team for free for some number of years, and generally the team leaves once they have to start paying for greener pastures in a different suburb or city that offered an even better deal. All because people have an emotional attachment to the team. The team has no emotional attachment for YOU. They will move if offered enough. They won't let you in for free if you had to take your kid to the doctor this week and that ate up your ballgame money. Nothing personal, it's just business, I'm sure you understand.

I grew up on a subsistance farm. We had a rotation of basically 4 field types. One field grew corn for winter feed. One field grew Sudex for summer hog forage. One field was fallow and had a cow grazing on it. One field was last year's fallow and was in prep for next year's corn. The slaughter house downtown provided blood that was spread on the prep field. Bones were dried and ground to bone meal and also applied. As time went by, regulations and hog prices got to the point where the farm could no longer sustain itself. There were several regulation problems. The property was bordered by a stream that fed to Chesapeake Bay. The hog lot had to be kept a certain distance from the stream to prevent pollution from their droppings. This ment taking land out of production. The house on the property had a cesspool. This had to be replaced by a septic system with a drainage system that did not feed into the stream. Expensive but was done.

The activity on the farm needed to adapt or the farm was going to die because it was costing more to keep the hogs alive than they brought at market. Adapt or die. We adapted. The hogs were sold off, all fences except the border fences pulled, the land was planted in alfalfa which a nearby dairy farmer cut in exchange for the property taxes. My uncle got a job nearby to handle the utilities (pretty much just electric, phone, and oil for winter heat) and upkeep on the house.

A major problem with many family farms, particularly ones that have been handed down from generation to generation is that many of the people running them are farmers but not business people. They were taught how things "are done" by their Pop or Grandpop or both and happily go about doing it ... then when the market changes get frustrated because they are doing everything "right" but not making any money and loose the farm. To be a successful farmer it helps to have some education in agriculture and business. This gives you the skills you need to be more successful at adapting to changes. Change is fucking relentless and you have to be prepared for it.

dana · Post by **dana** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:31 pm

Rob the Wop wrote:
dana wrote: I wonder if anyone else is struck with the irony that a thread which ostensibly started out as some sort of search for an answer to the seemingly endless question of resolving conflict with someone you love, has ended as a fairly useless piss-fest?

I quit. If your ego desires a victory - you win. (Spend it well.)
Not really, I get the feeling that this thread was created to justify your own personal excuse for a bad relationship. Hence, the bitter agruement against anyone claiming that love and disagreements are two seperate issues.
You have now entered the Eplaya, there are those here that use logic and reasoning. Sorry if this ruined your day.

Hi Rob
just wanted to stop by to see how you spent that ego currency I left you with. Not so well I see. It looks like you spent it on gloating and chest thumping. Ego never could figure out what to do with anything of value - whether the illusion of victory (or love.) If you've seen the movie Seven Samurai and remember the scene when they're recruiting additional swordsman - you just pulled a Toshiro Mifune move. You didn't find that somewhat obvious: "spend it well"?
This wierd little exercise is my response to the gruff I got from you and Stuart for suggesting ego is key to understanding disagreements and the loss of love. When you offered to dig out all your class notes, I couldn't imagine a worse hell. Until you actually 'put your fork into it', ego is a vague concept, difficult to isolate and subtle in it's effects. (There is a reason why Buddhists are always going on about ego and 'mindfulness'.) Trust me - it has the capacity to drain passion and extinquish love - absolutely. And it might just appear as if it simply drifted away. (Been there - done that, and no it was a wonderful relationship lost through ignorance which would have been compounded if I didn't learn anything from it.)
Oh by the way, in reference to "logic and reason", you might want to get Stuart to tell you how slippery and elusive they really are, since he took all those philosophy courses in college. Logic is actually a fairly arcane branch of philosophy, whose nitpicky rules are so rigid it never comes up in normal conversation. And based on that last little ego test, I wouldn't be making claims for having an unclouded reason.

Amen. End of sermon.
[We now resume your normal broadcasting.]

take care all.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:37 pm

god, my housemates were weirder than i thought.
logic - and all its nitpicky rules - came up in conversation daily.
as did obscure points of national and international law,
hacker info,
and information about trebuchets.

so, should i point out that in glorying over your supposed trouncing of Rob you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing him of?
and around and around and around we go.......

hereby stepping back out of this conversation....

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:56 pm

Well dana,
I'm guessing that your last post of 'this is my last post' was just that much bullshit, now wasn't it? Figured you'd post again, I was just waiting to see when.
I can see why you get all bent over the concept of disagreements, your ego doesn't seem to function without them. Have a nice love life.
Toodles from your bestest friend ever,
Evil Rob

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:00 pm

Stuart for suggesting ego is key to understanding disagreements and the loss of love.

cites please

When you offered to dig out all your class notes, I couldn't imagine a worse hell.

I assure you that the notes from your psuedo eastern hippie clap-trap philosophy class are equally as repellent to me.

There is a reason why Buddhists are always going on about ego

and fundamentalist christians go on and on about homosexuals. So what's your point?

all I ask when I ask that a discussion be taken seriously is that people steer clear of flights of fancy in their analogies, personal attacks and straw men. You are not going to find your eastern masters to feel any of those tacks to be constructive either.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:00 pm

holy edit function bat man

Sensei · Post by **Sensei** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:03 pm

dana wrote:Logic is actually a fairly arcane branch of philosophy, whose nitpicky rules are so rigid it never comes up in normal conversation.

Dana, I love you and you know I do. But your "normal conversation" and my "normal conversation" seem worlds apart.

And logic is arcane? It's offered at every university worth attending. Latin is arcane (sadly), but logic?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:10 pm

logic is the basis of all philosophy. It is the mathematics of language that allows us to go forth and discuss, with common ground, the other branches of the discipline.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:12 pm

logic : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

spirituality : sensitivity or attachment to religious values

one of these things seems far more usefull to me than the other

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:16 pm

stuart wrote:logic : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

spirituality : sensitivity or attachment to religious values

one of these things seems far more usefull to me than the other

And I'd probably trade them both in for a new kiln and a nice load of Uroborus glass.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:17 pm

Hi Dana,

Sorry to be a bother again, but I actually read your post this time. Logic is unused in this day and age?
Are you famaliar with a fancy little gadget called a computer? The basis behind which they operate is based upon the concept of 'truth tables' used in that same 'arcane' logic. And if you came into any R&D lab, you would see logic applied in any debugging principles. It's why they usually urge it as an elective (if not part) in any decent engineering carriculum.
Course, I'm sure Buddha was quite adapt at teaching his followers on how to properly build bridges with one hand (the other, of course, must be used to clap).

Smootches from your bestest friend,
Evil Rob

PS. Usually, if you cut the bruised part of the ego off- you can safely eat the rest.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:29 pm

arcane : known or knowable only to the initiate

Buddhism does not encourage man to become a slave of his own illusions. It does not leave him without a hope, or without a remedy. In the very beginning of his life as an initiate, it makes him clearly understand the illusory nature of life, and of the dangers of continuing it, so that he can adequately safeguard himself from them.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:01 pm

But we all still love each other, right?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:02 pm

fuck no

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:05 pm

stuart wrote:fuck no

and you wonder why everyone thought you were grumpy before they met you....

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:11 pm

heh

so, are you saying that you love everyone here?

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:20 pm

stuie wrote:heh

so, are you saying that you love everyone here?

no, i'm saying:

I wrote:and you wonder why everyone thought you were grumpy before they met you....

further,

stuie wrote:heh

so, are you saying that you love everyone here?

cites?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:25 pm

i'm saying

of course I don't love everyone here.

trying to be honest and all

so

when you countered with your comment on my apparent disposition (now I am gonna have to make a poll thread) I thought I would ask if you had a different opinion.

I was not making the declarative statement

Rian Loves Everyone

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:26 pm

oh, and congrats on not fuckin up the multiple quote thingie like I did

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:28 pm

stuart wrote:i'm saying

of course I don't love everyone here.

trying to be honest and all

so

when you countered with your comment on my apparent disposition (now I am gonna have to make a poll thread) I thought I would ask if you had a different opinion.

I was not making the declarative statement

Rian Loves Everyone

well, good then. i mean, look how i feel about Sensei, for instance.

squirrels can't love everybody. we have an agenda.
and it's different than that of you hippy freaks.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:29 pm

it's chipmunks

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:34 pm

*confused*
The Squirrels agenda is Chipmonks?

dana · Post by **dana** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:22 pm

Rian Jackson wrote:
so, should i point out that in glorying over your supposed trouncing of Rob you're guilty of the same thing you're accusing him of?
and around and around and around we go.......

hereby stepping back out of this conversation....

Been so busy hunting elk, its been awhile since I've checked on this spicey little thread.
No glory, more like embarrassment to see how things go sometimes and then you have to decide whether to just ignore, or since this is a thread on disagreements to point out something about what feeds disagreements. This thing with "trouncing", "pillow fights" or anytime someone's trying to belittle or intimidate is a mind game, a tread mill that traps the attention. Its an unexamined illusion that we somehow learn to believe has some actual value. We think - hey if I can trounce this person, then I get to feel superior. So what? You feel superior - what does that really give you? (Most people do the trouncing in their own minds - they'd never risk saying it outloud.)
My motive was to show how compulsive this thing is, like the obese person who can't resist that last bon bon. I'll give you another example: although I no longer bother to read the posts by Rob and Stuart, they have to read mine, so they can try to take them apart and ridicule them. They'd probably rather lose an eye first before stopping. Of course there's more games going on there than just trying to feel superior, especially for Stuart.
When you want to get out of a goofy game, start by naming it.

Rob the Wop · Post by **Rob the Wop** » Fri Oct 22, 2004 10:44 pm

dana wrote:When you want to get out of a goofy game, start by naming it.

You're not gone yet?

Oh that's right, that whole last word thing. Sorry, my bad. You win.

Oh crap, that's right. You have to reply to THIS post to win.

Sorry. Please go back to being morally superior.

Does "love" mean no disagreements?

Re: ~

Re: ~