Common Sense

Creative Forums Creative Writing
1

01.02.07.1823

PART ONE

[size=84][This post has been edited to clarify and generalize a particular part of the story above. While I am leaving the original posted in quote, please note that it is only for reference of change. The part bolded is what has been changed, obviously.][/size]

PART ONE (EDITED EDITION)

They gathered together and spoke of “common sense”, as if it were mere stupidity to not consider it truth; to not believe it. “Common sense”, it seemed, seemed to truly escape their minds when they were musing of subjects that all too easily proved to be false in the light of real truth. I began to pass by and one of them stopped me in my tracks, prompting a question: “Have you been saved?” I retorted: “Excuse me? I don’t believe in that; I have more common sense than that.” The man became pushy, “but this is common sense, brother; to see the truth for what it is and be alive!” I suddenly felt as if I was being attacked for not making the man feel good about his own belief, so I counter-attacked, not defended, because if I went on the defensive, that would mean that my argument could be countered due to the possibility of error: “Common sense? First of all, common sense states that I am not your brother. Second, it is the same ‘common sense’ as yours that has led mankind to believe that it is better than womankind and not equal, that there exists such a thing as race for a white person to be without ‘color’ even though the color white is that in the spectrum that is full of color, and that real truth is something that is not learned over a gradual process like evolution but simply a revelation as sudden as a leap to the top of a mountain of shining light from a dark pit of ignorance. The ‘common sense’ you preach is false truth; poison! You want to believe something so much that you will compound one lie with another as if it were mathematics; two negatives making a positive does not apply here.” The man was stunned, but seemed to quickly recover by practically ignoring what I just said; dismissing it as “words from the mouth of the devil” and reaffirming his position with “faith”…

2

I like everything about it except for that part about Nazis. Seriously, why Reducto ad Nazism something that’s supposed to be about common sense, when all those Reducto ads create problems with common sense?

3

01.04.07.1828

Ooo! A response! (LOL) While you do have a point here that I in fact agree with, the reference to Nazis was merely pulled out of the hat in the moment of writing; regardless, do you have a better suggestion besides Nazis? I welcome your opinions!

4

01.05.07.1830

PART TWO

[size=84](FROM PART ONE)[/size] The man was stunned, but seemed to quickly recover by practically ignoring what I just said; dismissing it as “words from the mouth of the devil” and reaffirming his position with “faith”…

…“Your tongue is that of Satan’s! Why have you given up your soul to speak of such false truths, such lies? Do you not know that Jesus is the Way? I want to help you! I want to save you! It’s not too late to rescue your soul from damnation!” The man seemed sincere enough, but it was exactly his sincerity that elaborated the scale of his ignorance. I noticed that his friends were now directing their attention upon me as well with their gazing eyes of anticipation, as if they were eager to stone me if I did not ‘confess my sins and bring Jesus into my heart immediately’. I thought for a moment and decided the only real solution was to leave them in their own ignorance. After all, it’s not like they could understand the reality of the world we live in, no matter how many times I would explain it. So I did, I turned and began walking away, and as I did, spoke out loud smiling: “Your vanity is so amusing… that much I will remember.” This was quickly not the end of it as such words seemed to infuriate their resolve. I called them vain, something they would consider a ‘sin’, and now it would be that same vanity, that same resolution of ego, that would seek to justify its existence and superiority. The man followed after me, with his friends just behind him. “How can you call us vain when it is you who has selfishly turned your back away from the Lord? You speak of the Word as if they were lies when it is you who has seen that Truth and denied it like a fool!” This was just about the sum of it, there were some other words spoken, but I couldn’t care to remember them. All I really remember beyond that paraphrasing was the final comment I gave the man; a sort of ‘thank you’ for his attempts at trying to ‘save’ me. A very cold ‘thank you’ at that though…

5

Lol, prove to me that “womankind” is equal to “mankind” and I will grant that you have any “sense” at all, let alone ‘common sense’ or whatever sense it is your looking for.
What you do not understand, is that the idea that woman is equal to man is the prevailing belief today. For all we know, it is an outright lie and we must decide for ourselves how men and women fit into the world. Man and woman is certainly not equal in any sense; both have strengths and weaknesses, and to simply call them equal is to limit both their potentials instead of just one.
Also, you are allowing the prevailing world view to overcome you on the issue of race. No matter how much racial propagandists tell you, racism is not the prevailing world view, as the idea that “all races are created equal” is the one that is winning the war, right now. If one reflects on this though, and does not take the propaganda at face value, you will eventually learn that this is a lie as well. The races are different, and when they individually come into power, different things happen. Analyze them; it is not too hard to see.
Your misunderstanding of Nietzsche is quite evident, friend. I’d say learn more and then try writing again.

6

01.07.07.1844

I find it somewhat amusing that I am responding to someone who claims I do not understand Nietzsche in light of the coincidence that the number of this post is the year of his birth.

First of all, sir, it is a made-up story written in the moment (to which I have no personal account in) that rests in the Creative Writing Forum… NOT the Social Sciences or Philosophy Forum. Perhaps if I made that clear at the very beginning, you would not be saying such things. Besides… you still haven’t offered any other suggestions. And now to your post.

I was assuming that you understood what I had written until I read the part in bold. I could have elaborated in the story what was meant by the word “equal”, but given the context under which it was used, I thought the message would have been communicated.Of course, you claim man and woman are not equal in any sense. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that a woman does not have the same rights as a man to achieve a position of success in the social, business, or political world? I hope you do not mean that, because I could easily cite many instances in history where a woman has succeeded as much, if not more, than a man. It was this essence of “equality” that was being referred to. In a religious society, a woman could not be equal to a man in this sense.
Indeed sir, I believe that you have misunderstood what was written. Until you clarify your argument, I will dismiss it as a misunderstanding and expect you to grant I have “sense.”

Are human beings of different colors different because of their skin, or because of a geological adaptation that shapes the orientation of a society and culture? If you really did study the human race, you would find that it is not genetics, but environment, that has formed differences.
By the way, “all races are created equal” is double-nonsense because their is only one true race, and it was not created.

You misunderstand me, sir. It’s not that I don’t understand Nietzsche, it’s that I don’t agree with some of his conclusions. The study of society and psychology is indeed a different spectrum from the study of genetics and science.

7

Are human beings of different colors different because of their skin, or because of a geological adaptation that shapes the orientation of a society and culture? If you really did study the human race, you would find that it is not genetics, but environment, that has formed differences.

You, being a true Nietzschean, who is a all things a cynic, a doubter of all things, someone who says no to all aspects of an argument before conceding a yes, would actually concede to the lie that it is only society that affected the races? It has nothing to do with the color of a person’s skin, but you would honestly 100 % say that there is no genetic factor involved? Of course there is, to say no, is like saying that you’re 100% sure that God exists.

Propoganda set in part has influenced your view evidentally. Of course, societal evolution has affected the races, but in the same breath, it is a down right idealistic delusion to say that genetics has no bearing on the difference between the races. Such a postition evolved as a reactionary measure towards Hitler, and is an outright lie and a harm to humanity.

You misunderstand me, sir. It’s not that I don’t understand Nietzsche, it’s that I don’t agree with some of his conclusions. The study of society and psychology is indeed a different spectrum from the study of genetics and science.

It is not that disagree with Nietzsche’s point; it is that you are afraid of the truth. I admire that you are not afraid to disbelieve in God, society would dislike you much if they knew, but you hold steadfastly in this area. But you fail in recognizing the truth in other areas, fail miserably. Martin Luther King Jr., Virgina Woolf: the propoganda they presented you ate up and never looked back. It is wrong to disagree with their ascertations, just like it is wrong to disagree in the existence of God, but are willing to concede one but not the other. Think harder; of course it is a strong argument that society, environment, geography, culture, religion etc. has created difference in the races, but just as true is it that there are intrinsic differences betweent the races racially. To deny so is outright lunacy, or the argument by people with an agenda–who benefit by all the races being equal. Is what I am saying not true; enlighten me if I am wrong.

Nietzsche said that he would judge man by how far they are willing to approach the truth and not give into lies. Ask Sauwelios where this is, but you are resistant to the truth in saying that all races and man/woman are all equal. It is dangerous to go closer to the truth, but is danger-treading not a quality you want to possess?

8

01.07.07.1847

I am a true Nietzschean? I was not aware of this. Upon what grounds have you based that assumption? Certainly you do not see yourself as a true Nietzschean? Of course you can’t. No one can. The only true Nietzschean was Nietzsche, just as the only true Christian was Christ, assuming he even existed that is.
You seem to have once more misunderstood me. You imply I would say that “it is only society that has affected the races” when I have already informed that there is but one human race. No sir, it is not as you have put it, it is that society has laid the groundwork for the propagation of the idea of ‘races’.

Again, I believe you have misunderstood me. Allow me to elaborate my original words. Do you honestly believe that it was genetics alone that were responsible for the differences observable by the naked eye? No… how could you? Indeed, it was environment that was the prime mover of change. Environment caused genetics to evolve and adapt, thus environment is responsible for the differences.
Of course, I am no more 100% sure that the Hebrew God exists anymore than Odin and Thor exist. Are you? Of course not… how could you be? Even Richard Dawkins is not 100% sure, but the probability against the existence of a deity is so high, that it is very easy, although not wholly scientific, to say that there is a 100% chance that there is no ‘God’.

What you speak of as “propaganda” is no different than that which has influenced your view as well.

Again, you have misunderstood me. Perhaps you would care to take this discussion to the Social Sciences Forum, where it belongs?

I don’t know what amuses me more about this part of your argument, the delusion or the spelling. What you are saying is not true, and I have tried to communicate that, but if you do not listen, how can you be ‘enlightened’? I believe that if I were to walk in your shoes for some time, I might come to the conclusions you have, and vice versa. So, can you honestly prove conclusively for the existence of “races”? Surely you do not consider the 214 species of woodpeckers as races, do you? I would hope not.

Wow, I’m amazed at how far this discussion has lasted without you providing any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims… would you care to present some? If you can’t, I’ll consider it a concession. Regardless… I would appreciate it if you did not interrupt a thread in the Creative Writing Forum like this ever again.

9

The word race comes has different meanings. Once again, you are using a popular societal argument, “there is only one race, the HUMAN race haha! Aren’t I witty!” to refute against an argument that suffers only because you are purposefully confusing the meanings of my words. Heck, the first defintion that comes up on dictionary.com is I quote “a group of persons related by common descent or heredity,” so I am not wrong ‘officially’ anyway. It does not matter what your definition of race is; and there is obvious difference between different races, if you choose to ignore them, your going with what society tells you, not me.

I assumed you are trying to be Nietzschean since you have his picture as your avatar and you try to create Zarathustra-like characters.

And yes, in zoological terms, the different woodpeckers are different races. Since you need evidence so much (was Nietzsche not ‘expelled’ as a scholar for not providing evidence?) I’ll quote dictionary.com again, "Zoology. a variety; subspecies. " There you go, right under the definition for ‘race.’ If the existence of ‘races’ is not already self-evident for you, you are the one deluded, not me. Clear your vision and see.

10

01.08.07.1849

That’s it? Dictionary.com? That’s your only evidence? Don’t you know that Dictionary.com is perhaps the worst online dictionary on the net? I tend to use Merriam-Webster myself; for at the very least, Merriam-Webster publishes physical dictionaries. Have you ever seen a dictionary.com brand published physical dictionary? I doubt it. By the way, the Merriam-Webster definition cites “race” as meaning ‘the act of running’. The definition you’ve cited isn’t even in the first category for the word ‘race’.

If I am the deluded one, then how come you can’t prove your argument? I think you need to clear your vision and see. Which brings me to the next point.

Okay, that has to be one of the grossest errors anyone could ever make. That’s like me saying you must be Chinese because your avatar has a Chinese man who looks like he came out of Romance of the Three Kingdoms. No, you are in error.

Due to your lack of real evidence, you have automatically conceded your argument. If you wish to continue this argument, please start a thread in the Social Sciences Forum. Regardless, I expect you to leave this thread and stop spamming it with your nonsense. If you fail to do so, I will not hesitate to go to the Mods and have you punished for harassment.

Have a nice day, and next time, don’t argue for cases you know you’ll lose.

11

Ha, as a matter offact it is Liu Bei. Do many people know of the Three Kingdoms around here?

12

01.08.07.1850

There are a few, to my recolection. It’s been a while though that I’ve seen anyone take an interest in it.

PART THREE

I turned around to face the group of zealous insecurities that seemed intent on harassing me for insulting their lack of common sense. “You called me selfish, right? That’s funny. See, you are overly concerned with what will happen with your ‘soul’ when you die. You can do ‘good deeds and works’ in this life, but in the end, it’s all about you. People may even think of you as being selfless, as you take the time to put others ahead of yourself, but this is all part of the doctrine you ingested. You do these things, these acts of selflessness, because you believe that you will be rewarded for them when you die. How then is that not selfish? How then, is that not vanity? If you truly were selfless, you would not concern yourself with the so-called ‘afterlife’. Even your Christ was selfish. He, or whoever invented him, believed that he was dying to save the whole of humanity from being locked away in Sheol for eternity. Of course, the end goal would be the glorification and adoration of those whom he had saved. Not to mention, the enthronement of authority. These things are great rewards for one who would throw their life away in suffering and torment. Of course, Jesus only suffered, what, a day or so at most? Throughout history, people have been continuously tortured and maimed, forced to endure the suffering for lengths of time far beyond that of your Christ. Do those people then deserve a reward greater than him? Indeed, to be Christian, is by default, to be selfish. But then, you have deluded yourself into believing that selfishness is the way of your Devil, Satan. How amusing it is that you cloak your selfishness behind an all-pervading ubiquitous evil.
Now… I thank you for your time, and hope that you will someday look at the world for what it is. A world that does not need religion, but still uses it for sentimental value, as if the planet were a pack rat. Good day gentlemen; and oh, by the way, if any of you come near me again I’ll sue you for harassment.” I smiled. Their faces, when I last saw them before turning around, was of a mixed bunch. A couple faces were clearly upset and angry (hatred is the true tool of religion), one face was aghast in the awe of what I had just said, and another face seemed complacent, as if he did not care what was said. I looked forward to the next day ahead, and continued to smile, for there was a world out there for me to see one day. A world without religion. A world… of common sense.

13

Um… I would cut out the part about harrassment: funny and witty, but it sort it will ruin your argument for some by making your speaker look like a jerk.

14

01.10.07.1857

That is possible, but then, progress in the world is not shaped by those who stand idly by and ‘go with the flow’… no, progress/change is caused by jerks/assholes who want to make the world adapt to themselves, not adapt to the world. (I can’t remember who it was on this site that said something like that, but I want to thank them and give credit for it.)

15

Uh, yeah but that whole suing people over nothing thing is a decadent part of society. It doesn’t represent strenght or getting things done at all.

16

01.13.07.1866

You’re right, it doesn’t represent progress, it represents our modern-day world. Society today is suffering from the cancer of itself. The man threatened a suit, because that’s what the Christians would have done if the roles had been reversed. It’s interesting how, here in America, a person can sue anyone for anything it seems. The freedom to live as we choose is buffered by this cancer. If I choose to live in peace, and someone disrupts that peace, they’ve obstructed my path of life, liberty, and my persuit of happiness. They must pay, right? Not really. I don’t believe that the society we have today is the correct one, but it is the closest possible one we can construct right now to what would be correct.