Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - w1s3m0n

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
I'm glad men are speaking up against women too.

Debate Central / Re: Liberals Are Not Liberal
« on: February 21, 2018, 06:40:04 PM »
The point is, if you mislabeled me a Liberal and I don't fit your definition of a liberal, it doesn't mean liberals have changed.  It means you made a mistake in your labeling. so..Try another label.

We call blue,, red...etc...  Liberalism is founded on the work of Locke, Kant, Hayek, and Mills.  You cannot change the meaning of liberalism to be socialism.  That's the whole problem with post modernist. 

Debate Central / Re: Trust or Love?
« on: February 21, 2018, 06:38:06 PM »
tell us the difference between trusting a bank and trusting a love one again?  :2funny: :idiot2:

See Post #20.  If you are still confused I can attempt to simplify for you.

Money & Investment / Re: We talk stock market here.......
« on: February 20, 2018, 08:36:01 PM »
I am not sold on Fitbit, too much competition and FOSL focusing more on wearables will put more pressure on FIT. Fits business model is too easy to copy. 

GE will make a recovery.  If itís still the same company will have to be seen.  A smaller, less bloated one maybe.  I feel there are better plays out there currently. 

No Juan is Illegal!

Agreed on FitBit wearable, but their vision for their new digital healthcare business with wearable is quite interesting.  FitBit digital health vision is crazy.

Debate Central / Re: Trust or Love?
« on: February 20, 2018, 08:31:36 PM »
making you look like a fool is not trolling. seriously, you can't tell there difference between trusting a bank and trusting a loved one.  :2funny: :idiot2:

I'm still waiting for you to make me look stupid because you make assertion without any rationale or evidence to back your assertion.  I fear all you have done is made a statement about me that is not true, and that's what trolling is called.  Perhaps you need to start by reading a dictionary so you can actually make me look like a fool.  Still waiting...

Debate Central / Re: Free Speech Violation?
« on: February 20, 2018, 08:27:37 PM »
PH owner is not holding a gun to your head to log on.  You choose to log on and participate.  I don't understand why you are writing what you are writing.  Perhaps you can help us understand how PH is oppressing you.  Maybe you need a save place.

Debate Central / Free Speech Violation?
« on: February 19, 2018, 03:55:49 PM »

Faith & Beliefs / Re: Absolute Truth
« on: February 19, 2018, 01:32:38 PM »
Let me also add that it clearly states this in the Bible.  Jesus ask one of his disciples "what do they call me?"  He replied "You are the Son of GOD".  Jesus then ask again "who do you think I am?"  The disciple answered "You ARE the Son of GOD".  There it is folks, a conviction from the heart of what he saw and witnessed.  The teachings of Jesus goes far and beyond what a child may think.  Many "christians" have it wrong on so many levels, so let me explain.  When you do a deed, be it a good deed or an ill will deed...the reward for the deed is termed "good" when that person believes that it was.  Goodness is the reward.  His feeling of "goodness" or self gratification IS the reward.  When an ill-will deed has been committed, the person who did that deed does not believe that what he/she had done is wrong, there is no conviction from that person yet until others dissect the motive for the deed.  His deed is confirmed as an "ill-will" presented by the motive.  He still gets his reward from his ill-will deed because of his gratification but it quickly changes when others believed that it was nothing but EVIL

How to resolve if others think your deed was "evil".  In this scenario, you are given two chances to redeem yourself.  First, you have consistently bring FAVOR to the person or people you have brought that deed upon.  If you can not do that, then the second chance is for you to ask for their forgiveness.  You do whatever it takes to get that forgiveness.  These are the two chances that you will only get.  The game of Baseball is a game of 3rd strike and you are out BUTTTTTT,  you are given 2 chances

Killing is the worst of all ill-willed deed and it is the most evil.  Not because the deed will haunt that person forever but because you will no longer be given the chance to ask forgiveness or repentance.  Killing other people so your life could be lived will make you the DEVIL.  And that was what Cain did to Able.  Yes, Cain spelled "lived" backwards and got "devil" so that he could "live" being "evil".

moral relativism?  Was Mao justified?

Debate Central / Re: Trust or Love?
« on: February 19, 2018, 12:47:33 PM »
The topic here is really about how you order your life and not so much about what is right for everyone.  There is no right/wrong way to order your life.  We see a lot of people order their life through trust because they need that sense of reliability.  That's great because we all need a sense of security and reliability.  High trusting relationship will do that.  I'll just say this about is sacred and when you find a sacred relationship you'll know.  Penguin love.

I believe western civilization promote freedom of expression more than eastern civilization, and you are see the expression more often in western culture.  Look at public expression of affection of White Americans vs. Asian Americans.

obviously there's exceptions... well a lot of exceptions..

but I was watching black panther and there was a white women sitting beside me..

everytime black panther got hurt she was "oh no..." and sad..and like "oh my gosh"..

and then when things looked bleak she was like "oh nooo..."

Like she really wanted to go help them!

Debate Central / Re: Trust or Love?
« on: February 17, 2018, 11:54:52 PM »
I'm not a fan of Freud, but he did influence other scholars. Read Freud and his once hopeful student Carl Jung. Their are many credible early childhood models. The two that I subscribe to are Maslow and Erikson. Good luck.

The premise of your example with mother and child is flawed. That argument is a fallacy. By the way, most of the entertaining arguments in PH can be categorized into specific types of fallacy. Google fallacy, then read some of the heated discussions here; and you will find fallacies in their discord. Once you understand that, the humor will enlighten you. Have fun.

In behavioral management, and as a people manager, I apply Maslow and Erickson day to day.  I do this downward, laterally, and upward.  I find their work to be very practical in understanding normal people needs and wants, and in anticipating what/how to manage people to build trust, engagement.  Modern management style tend to use theory Y management style...inspir e people vs theoryX management skeptical of people and use (utility) people as an means to an end of production/profits.  Everything I practice here is all about utility of production and profits through the manipulating human emotion to achieve the highest level of performance in people.  They call this leadership.  All these relationship are highly based upon trust.  I trust my employees will do a good job, and they trust me I will give them good raises and promotion.  This is what a transactional process is - I do A for B.  I put my $$ in the bank, and they give me 1% APR.

In your model of love, you have said love is on the apex and there are scaffolding and that scaffolding is the pyramid, Maslow and Erickson.  In addition, in your view on loving relationship, a loving relationship can be people taking each other for granted.  For sure you are very much a utilitarian on the concept of love.  I'm not.  I think love is sacred and you don't.  Your form of love might be eros and phileo...I try to seek forms of love that are unconditional, agape.  Everything else, I don't consider love.  My natural state is to serve and give so I don't really do the eros and those cases it's friendship...i t's trusting.

In my world view, I see love above trust because love is sacred.  Love brings warmth.  Trust can be manipulating and cold because trust is often negotiated: I do X for Y.  Trust dies when it is not reciprocated.  Love doesn't die, it endures.  Don't believe me.  Test it.  Anyone who requires constant negotiating in I do X for Y, is not a loving relationship, it is a trusting relationship.  For example, in the Hmong culture, we talk about love as an exchange of energy and time.  That's not love.  That's trust.  Perhaps it is why many Hmong people see trust as higher because that's what we care most about.

In Brene Brown work on the anatomy of Trust she talks about BRAVING (boundaries, reliability, accountability, vault, integrity, non-judgement, generosity).  Nearly everything in the Hmong culture of love can be seen within this context.  Most relationship can be seen within this context.  The reality is, we have many, many trusting relationship, and we have VERY FEW loving relationship.  Some may HAVE NONE.  It is why the great Roman Philosopher and Christian Apostile, St Paul wrote, 1 COR 13, EPH 5, and perhaps the most insightful point on love by this great philosopher/apostle is the following:

1 COR 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."  I argue most people fall into the latter categories...t heir love is not authentic in the romantic definition.  When you have nothing to give, you will know if they love you. 

Paul Lo speech echo JFK, Eisenhower, and Obama.

You love how humble they are ;)

Debate Central / Re: Trust or Love?
« on: February 17, 2018, 04:34:11 AM »
people in loving relationships take each other for granted

 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  Is that really love?  Is that why we have 50% divorce rate?  My personal quest to understand more about love is precisely that point.  I feel EXACTLY that way and it bothers me.  Am I really love because of my utility?  What happens when I have no utility?  Is there still love?  So why not just call it utility?

I've been reading stoic philosophy for some reason.  Seneca  and Augustus.

Debate Central / Re: Trust or Love?
« on: February 17, 2018, 04:20:02 AM »
You believe that trust is first then love because you say, "In order to achieve love, you must have some level of trust first."  How does a mother trust a newborn?  How does a stranger who takes a personal sacrifice get their trust?  If trust is the underpinning of love, and love is merely a higher order of trust, why do we see moments of no trust yet actions that are irrational to the model...  In my opinion, the order matters because the order predicate everything else...  Trust me, I know I'm going against the grain. 

Clearly someone does not know about the pyramid of human emotional development. Trust is at a lower platform than love. Love is the apex. If you understand how scaffolding works, then my work is done. If scaffolding is foreign to you, then I'm done; go educate yourself.

Your confusion may be partly due to the fact that people in loving relationships take each other for granted, and this may lead to mistrust and resentment. Suffice to say that this pyramid is dynamic, fluid if you will, but in order to achieve love, you must have some level of trust first.

I'll add...why is it that after almost 100 years of psychology and sociology we don't feel better about each other.  We live in a world of less trust, fake news, less love, in-authenticity, etc...  Maybe the models are wrong.  Would one say, the proof is in the pudding?  Even if we say people are ignorant to the model, then why the change over time as these theory are diffuse by "thought leaders" to followers.

Btw, I'm not an expert or a researcher in this field of human emotional development.  I only became interested in these concept through trying to understand myself and my relationships better.  Lastly, do share your model by pasting a link.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14