Are there any expressions which you would say are unequivocally wrong? Violence would be classified as wrong, presumably by anyone, but if the expressions that cause violence weren’t to be, is there then a discrepancy?
Depends on how you define wrong and the individual/collective perceptions of gain and/or loss with that definition.
I welcome your answer. I think a reasonable definition of wrong is anything which results in violence, especially needlessly.
Many of us who engage in violence do not perceive it as wrong as we gain more than we lose.
Your just trying to get me banned now, aren’t you.
I wouldn’t wish that upon my enemy.
No, I mean the OP… I started writing out a deeply objectional statement…
Violence creates violence. Love creates love. It’s really just that simple.
I can see the logic of what you’re saying. But violence has to have a starting point that doesn’t involve violence - even if that starting point is eons ago.
Assuming that not all expression is valid, would you agree that the solution is to classify anything that’s right as not expression, and then right and wrong can always be known apart from one another?
In essence, the term expression would need to be discarded.
There are a great many expressions which by themselves don’t cause harm, but by virtue of others seeing them as harm/difference, those others will cause harm such to stop those expressions happening. Is it not reasonable though, to also not do the thing which will make others react with violence? Ergo to not cause harm includes one persons considerations and expressions, and also the given others! Mostly there are a whole host of shared expressions which all humans do, and very few which are different once you understand the language.
- but without having to understand all languages and all ways, don’t we all already know what not to do?
Yes. I agree with lots of what you said. There are many expressions which can only be harmful because of projected meaning: I think an example of what I’m talking about is the idea that a question such as “Should all nations be ended because of Lindsay Schoneweis?” never appears on television, on a network like CNN or the BBC.
If the question is intelligent, but would always be censored from television, is it a wrong expression - in which case, are expression and intelligence simply at odds with one another, and therefore transcendence means the absence of all expressions?
Is violence always “wrong”?
Intent and motive is important, don’t you think?
There is violence in war but for a just cause? Is that violence to be considered “wrong” ~ immoral?
Violence committed against a perpetrated, any perpetrator ~~ can that be considered wrong?
Distinctions always have to be made.
You’re right. Reason of violence does blur the issue. That’s why I think the UN should announce all homo sapiens on Earth as something like formula, or as being identical to a planet, because even if those assertions can’t be scientifically proven they would help humanity reach a point where all causes of violence can be negated - and then the issue of violence being right or wrong can be negated.
Does the end result matter at all, Ierrellus?
Love does not always create love. It isn’t that simple. That’s a placebo or like a band aid being put on a deep gunshot wound.
All causes of violence? That might just be a little tricky. You might have to go way back to determine the causes ofviolence.
Define what YOU mean by negated?
You don’t think that it is important to understand the root of the violence?
Again, what do mean by negated?
I mean ended. Once all people on Earth were in a mental state where they knew they could expect anyone else to think of them as a planet, or a city or as formula, violence as a whole wouldn’t have reason to exist anymore. Essentially reality would need to become the inverse, such that the participants of the Battle of Hastings would become users of YouTube, and users of YouTube would become the Battle of Hastings, etc etc.
The overall point is the importance of the world being addressed in a way it’s never been addressed before.
Violence would still exist in the animal kingdom and it would re-plant the seeds in our hearts and minds.
The solution would be for that reality to become reality; the inability that other species represent would become the referenced, and then hopefully reality’s principle would mean transcendence from it.
I understand why you reference the animal kingdom. The very existence of anti ought to mean reason to hope.
We already have that reality in this present moment.
An example would be this: years from now, a speech about dealing with a financial deficit from whatever politician, despite right now you and I having this discussion about transcendence and the right and wrongs of expression. Or, to give another example, 1,000 years ago people would have had all the discussions that have been had on this site, yet 1,000 years later wars and nations exist, as does the need for money, and the existence of television.
It’s a profound thought isn’t it: a millennia ago was talk of why reality exists, and evolution, and perhaps talk of the internet, yet 1,000 years later people talk about why the BFG recently flopped, or what happens to the UK now that it’s voted to leave the EU.
All the people who lived a millennia ago were as much why reality exists as anyone today, therefore what must be intended by reality is this reflection.