Talk-Polywell.org

What is it about your motorcycle which engenders "respect", in YOUR usage of the term.

Is it wise, and scholarly? Does it comport itself with a kind of graceful dignity?

I value my motorcycle. It has power, handling, looks and good mileage. These things make it important to me.

I fear its power and handling. I understand that misapplied, and taken outside the design envelope I incur high risk.

I weigh the neccessity of value against risk. If I lose value of it, I would tend to treat it more badly, and also decrease my risk margin.

If I lose fear of it, that would also decrease my risk margin, as I would be more inclined to take it too and beyond its limits.

hanelyp wrote:re: Obama being gay, against the tapestry of everything else known about him I consider it insignificant.

With such issues as
- Close connections to an unrepentant terrorist, and a racist America hating pastor.
- Being raised in a 3rd world country by a non US citizen.
- Lines such as "spreading the wealth around" and higher taxes in the name of "fairness".

The "Gay" issue is significant if it caused him to take illegal steps to avoid blackmail. The allegation is that he may have had people killed rather than permit them to potentially blackmail him.

With this Chicago thug, it is a less farfetched theory than it might be with someone else.

Obama COULD NOT win if allegations that he was gay had made it to the public consciousness. He would have lost votes in virtually every important demographic, and such a loss would have been worth billions to his cronies and other people who have been enriched by his Presidency.

Given that Chicago Democrats have a long and well known association with Criminal elements, it is really not much of a stretch to think they might eliminate problems that posed a risk to their future raiding of government money.

That Obama might participates in homosexual activity does not bother them at all. That it might cost him the election, and therefore deprive them of potential future graft, THAT would bothers them quite a lot.

As an Arson investigator I used to know said: "The only buildings that burn, are the ones that NEED to burn. "


A lot of dead homosexuals appear to have been left in Obama's wake.

ladajo wrote:

What is it about your motorcycle which engenders "respect", in YOUR usage of the term.

Is it wise, and scholarly? Does it comport itself with a kind of graceful dignity?

I value my motorcycle. It has power, handling, looks and good mileage. These things make it important to me.

I fear its power and handling. I understand that misapplied, and taken outside the design envelope I incur high risk.

I weigh the neccessity of value against risk. If I lose value of it, I would tend to treat it more badly, and also decrease my risk margin.

If I lose fear of it, that would also decrease my risk margin, as I would be more inclined to take it too and beyond its limits.

The point being, you used the "Fear" interpretation of the word "Respect." You have made my point.

Huh?

No, don't see it.

You want to use the slang usage of the word respect, which is "fear". That is fine, but it is not its true intent.

Respect is Value. Things that you value you treat well. Things that you do not value you do not treat well.

Fear is a perception of detrimental outcome. You think bads thing could/will happen. This has nothing to do with respect.

You could respect fear, but you could not fear respect in context. It makes no sense.

Anyway, you use the word how you wish. I will use it how I wish. My main point is that your use furthers miseducated propaganda about selfishness and rights.

I'd rather argue about more consequential topics anyway. I'm sure you feel the same.

Diogenes wrote:I'd rather argue about more consequential topics anyway. I'm sure you feel the same.

Yup. My only real bone of contention is the furthering of propaganda about fear as a power/control tool by the (IMO) misuse of the word "respect".

You know the, "respect me or I'll crush you" mentality.

Nuff said I guess. Moving on.

Diogenes: yeah, the slander/libel thing was meant to go after the murder statement. Sloppy on my part. Sorry.

Yeeess! The house thing. That is what I forgot. I looked it up. Seems it kind of walked the legal line. I don't recall seeing anything during the election. That would have been fair game in my exalted opinion. Might have swayed a few of the undecided. It doesn't impress me, but hey, it should have been reported.

I see the point on media effects on how people vote/behave, even if I am unmoved by these particular reports. But I will keep a look out for such things just the same! So don't worry.

rj40 wrote:Diogenes: yeah, the slander/libel thing was meant to go after the murder statement. Sloppy on my part. Sorry.

Yeeess! The house thing. That is what I forgot. I looked it up. Seems it kind of walked the legal line. I don't recall seeing anything during the election. That would have been fair game in my exalted opinion. Might have swayed a few of the undecided. It doesn't impress me, but hey, it should have been reported.

I see the point on media effects on how people vote/behave, even if I am unmoved by these particular reports. But I will keep a look out for such things just the same! So don't worry.

That is my point. The media scrutinize people they hate with a microscope, a procto-scope, and any other means at their disposal. They completely look the other way when it's someone they love. This practice harms Democracy. They should apply their proctoscope to everyone without discrimination.