Chic, gomenkudasaii, takusan beiikokujin niihongo-wa dekismaen. Gomenasaii-shibaraku desu! Welcome to the forum, sorry to be of no help! You may e-mail me through my profile. Watashi no sensei no karate-wa to "roomate" no shi deshta Koyama Shojiro-san no Hosei University. Watshi-no adana "aka oni". Pete
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
So bad?
- Thread starter Chicahiro Ishida
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2000
- Messages
- 1,926
Razoredj, nobody misinterprets you. My sentences are sure akward because this is not my mother's thongue. However your stylistic sparks are not real arguments. Let's see:
quote:
Living one's life contrary to one's own desires because a dead parent demanded it probably won't help...
Sure. But his father is alive and using this as an argument while living. You are fortunate enugh to live in a modern, diverse and free society. You were not brought up by other cultures. The tragical point is that this is a real dilemma for Chicahiro.
Quote:
You obviously do not understand the concept of living by principles. One adopts the principles one believes to be morally correct. If one
allows oneself to sway from those principles, one is, by definition, forsaking what is right for what is pragmatic, convenient, popular... excuses abound. It is not pride to remain steadfast in one's devotion to what one believes to be right. Situational ethics serve no one well.
See, that was my point. You do not understand that 1.) your possibility (freedom) to adopt and drop principles without loosing is much greater than his one. You do not live in a more ore less homogenous population with almost no immigration, tightly packed in small geographic area. Will you be the same "lone hero" if you were living let see in the South of U.S. circa 1820?
2.) the principles you subscribe are also popular, pragmatic, convenient. The moment your financial/ecological/family etc. wealth is wanished you just can dye but not live with your "strong men" principles.
3.) Situational ethic is not the same what I have said and you describe above. Every ethic deals with human situations, makes distinctions between situations but this does not make them necessarily situational. To try to understand the historical/situational circumstances OTHER PEOPLE live in is not situational ethic. You do not have to approve cannibalism, prostitution, robbery etc. But you have to take in account the concrete historical and cultural enviroment.
Is Romeo and Juliet's story a moral problem today for the mainstream Western society? No. But what about today's India? They are at the same turning point as the postmedieval European society was.
Are everybody's moral principles equally right? No. But you have to select by importance. Some valuesa are seem to be universal, others are only historically achieved given the right political/cultural enviroment.
What you misinterpret as a situational ethic is at the core of every ethic: how to deal whit the conflicting situations when your individual desires confront those of the people around you.
That is why you have historical and ethnic/religious etc. variety of ethics and not an ONLY GENERAL ETHIC. Your own is a 'here and now' ethic too and in the same time your adopt principles which are not invented by you. I tend to think that even the individual combination of these your adopted principles are not unique, probably there are quite a few fellows around the globe who have exactly the same moral values as you. Even the individualists want to appeal to some kind of crowd. Were you totally self-absorbed (I mean this would be a pathological situation) you would never participate so eagerly in this Forum and would not respond to different topics.
Quote:
Look, Skippy, that's precisely what I'm doing. In his situation, at 26 freaking years old, I can't see myself letting my father run my adult life for me, and run it according to absurd, hysterical misconceptions. He may be in a situation that cannot ever be resolved. If so, why even ask these questions? Why participate in a knife forum that obviously would enrage his father if his father knew of it?
If you were born in Japan, if you were brought up according to his family's values and if you were confronted with the housing problems in that country, let me ask respectfully, how would you run your adult life. As a lone cowboy you will not run for a long in Japan. Even immigrating from Japan is not as easy as you may think.
Quote:
Those who cower in the face of the majority will spend their lives doing just that. It's certainly a pragmatic choice.
Well, believe or not but the reality you so much praise produced such a moral dilemma. Go with the majority or keep the knives but loose your family's support.
What I have suggested as an INDEED pragmatic choice was to try to keep both the family AND the knives.
You have accepted the "logical framework" of the so called reality. I have suggested that he try to transform the framework by obeying one of the main principles of his own (and in a way of every really human) moral tradition: stick with the family if they are not bastards.
Quote:
You are my equal as long as you are strong enough to assert yourself. If you feel you are being dealt with as inferior, that is your weakness, not mine. I am not prejudiced against anyone; I simply espouse my beliefs as I see them. You may accept them, or you may reject them -- but don't expect me not to correct you if you misinterpret me.
Well, here we see the proud ethic of the conquering Roman emperors, the conquistadores, European colonialists. You seem to pay attention to the social realities at least. No logical arguing, just see who is the stronger. Now, IF THAT IS NOT A SITUATIONAL ETHIC I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE MORE...
You see I FIRST GRANT EQUAL RIGHTS TO OTHERS: NO MORE BUT NO LESS EITHER. That is the basis of the democracy never achived, but at least an ideal principle I am ACTUALLY subscribing to. A basic right in my view is to accept that different people live in different communities and I have no more right to influence their way of chosen life than I allow them to influence the chosen life in my own community. You are never dealing with ideal, atomized, isolated individuals. Everybody is an individual WITHIN his/her own community. You have the luck to belonging to a less controlling community. That should give you more responsibility when you deal with foreign to you cultures.
I do not fell inferior or week when confront your ideas. I just try to point out your logical inconsequences. You may try to reject them with eloquence but this will not replace an argument.
Your "arguments" in your posts were:
1.) I don't care what you say.
2.) you misinterpret me.
3.) you feel inferior, because you dared to challenge my suprematist views.
4.) you better learn your English if you want to challenge me.
5.) I'll try to provoke you, so I call you Skippy.
6.) You grant the POSSIBILITY that my cultural/ethical framework is not the only and rightly just one in the world, so your ethic is situational.
7.) What I've said, I've said. I stick to it. My ethic is not a situational one, so that means I can not and I will not change my views.
Now. let's imagine, just for a moment that your ADULT child misbehaves and his belives confront your ones. So you will not try to change his ones but instead praise him as a morally integral, non-situationalist person. Especially if he holds a loaded gun in his hands, demonstrating that he is strong enough to assert himself. He is not listening to you, he doesn't argue at all. He even may call you Skippy. I know, this could not be your REAL child, it is just a FICTIONAL one to demonstrate the above mentioned principle. You do not have to give up a grain from your principles, moral monolith etc. You just solve the problem. No "situationalism", no moral pressure from the majority. Will you convince him, will you argue? On what basis will you punish him (not spanking of course)? Will you somehow punish him at all? He has his OWN ideas, he is ADULT, he is right on his OWN. Do you have any logical argument? He is even stronger and faster than you. You being a weaker old one you no longer stay on EQUAL TERMS OR RIGHTS with him. Not to speak any respect, moral or other superiority. Your STATUS as a father is an EMPTY social construction, he has his OWN SET of moral values. Yours mean him nothing more than a "flying squirrel". Praise the young beast, you may wish to say with Zarathustra.
But seriously, please give LOGICAL arguments. I am ready to admit if I was wrong, but first try to argue.
This should be a Forum after all.
quote:
Living one's life contrary to one's own desires because a dead parent demanded it probably won't help...
Sure. But his father is alive and using this as an argument while living. You are fortunate enugh to live in a modern, diverse and free society. You were not brought up by other cultures. The tragical point is that this is a real dilemma for Chicahiro.
Quote:
You obviously do not understand the concept of living by principles. One adopts the principles one believes to be morally correct. If one
allows oneself to sway from those principles, one is, by definition, forsaking what is right for what is pragmatic, convenient, popular... excuses abound. It is not pride to remain steadfast in one's devotion to what one believes to be right. Situational ethics serve no one well.
See, that was my point. You do not understand that 1.) your possibility (freedom) to adopt and drop principles without loosing is much greater than his one. You do not live in a more ore less homogenous population with almost no immigration, tightly packed in small geographic area. Will you be the same "lone hero" if you were living let see in the South of U.S. circa 1820?
2.) the principles you subscribe are also popular, pragmatic, convenient. The moment your financial/ecological/family etc. wealth is wanished you just can dye but not live with your "strong men" principles.
3.) Situational ethic is not the same what I have said and you describe above. Every ethic deals with human situations, makes distinctions between situations but this does not make them necessarily situational. To try to understand the historical/situational circumstances OTHER PEOPLE live in is not situational ethic. You do not have to approve cannibalism, prostitution, robbery etc. But you have to take in account the concrete historical and cultural enviroment.
Is Romeo and Juliet's story a moral problem today for the mainstream Western society? No. But what about today's India? They are at the same turning point as the postmedieval European society was.
Are everybody's moral principles equally right? No. But you have to select by importance. Some valuesa are seem to be universal, others are only historically achieved given the right political/cultural enviroment.
What you misinterpret as a situational ethic is at the core of every ethic: how to deal whit the conflicting situations when your individual desires confront those of the people around you.
That is why you have historical and ethnic/religious etc. variety of ethics and not an ONLY GENERAL ETHIC. Your own is a 'here and now' ethic too and in the same time your adopt principles which are not invented by you. I tend to think that even the individual combination of these your adopted principles are not unique, probably there are quite a few fellows around the globe who have exactly the same moral values as you. Even the individualists want to appeal to some kind of crowd. Were you totally self-absorbed (I mean this would be a pathological situation) you would never participate so eagerly in this Forum and would not respond to different topics.
Quote:
Look, Skippy, that's precisely what I'm doing. In his situation, at 26 freaking years old, I can't see myself letting my father run my adult life for me, and run it according to absurd, hysterical misconceptions. He may be in a situation that cannot ever be resolved. If so, why even ask these questions? Why participate in a knife forum that obviously would enrage his father if his father knew of it?
If you were born in Japan, if you were brought up according to his family's values and if you were confronted with the housing problems in that country, let me ask respectfully, how would you run your adult life. As a lone cowboy you will not run for a long in Japan. Even immigrating from Japan is not as easy as you may think.
Quote:
Those who cower in the face of the majority will spend their lives doing just that. It's certainly a pragmatic choice.
Well, believe or not but the reality you so much praise produced such a moral dilemma. Go with the majority or keep the knives but loose your family's support.
What I have suggested as an INDEED pragmatic choice was to try to keep both the family AND the knives.
You have accepted the "logical framework" of the so called reality. I have suggested that he try to transform the framework by obeying one of the main principles of his own (and in a way of every really human) moral tradition: stick with the family if they are not bastards.
Quote:
You are my equal as long as you are strong enough to assert yourself. If you feel you are being dealt with as inferior, that is your weakness, not mine. I am not prejudiced against anyone; I simply espouse my beliefs as I see them. You may accept them, or you may reject them -- but don't expect me not to correct you if you misinterpret me.
Well, here we see the proud ethic of the conquering Roman emperors, the conquistadores, European colonialists. You seem to pay attention to the social realities at least. No logical arguing, just see who is the stronger. Now, IF THAT IS NOT A SITUATIONAL ETHIC I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE MORE...
You see I FIRST GRANT EQUAL RIGHTS TO OTHERS: NO MORE BUT NO LESS EITHER. That is the basis of the democracy never achived, but at least an ideal principle I am ACTUALLY subscribing to. A basic right in my view is to accept that different people live in different communities and I have no more right to influence their way of chosen life than I allow them to influence the chosen life in my own community. You are never dealing with ideal, atomized, isolated individuals. Everybody is an individual WITHIN his/her own community. You have the luck to belonging to a less controlling community. That should give you more responsibility when you deal with foreign to you cultures.
I do not fell inferior or week when confront your ideas. I just try to point out your logical inconsequences. You may try to reject them with eloquence but this will not replace an argument.
Your "arguments" in your posts were:
1.) I don't care what you say.
2.) you misinterpret me.
3.) you feel inferior, because you dared to challenge my suprematist views.
4.) you better learn your English if you want to challenge me.
5.) I'll try to provoke you, so I call you Skippy.
6.) You grant the POSSIBILITY that my cultural/ethical framework is not the only and rightly just one in the world, so your ethic is situational.
7.) What I've said, I've said. I stick to it. My ethic is not a situational one, so that means I can not and I will not change my views.
Now. let's imagine, just for a moment that your ADULT child misbehaves and his belives confront your ones. So you will not try to change his ones but instead praise him as a morally integral, non-situationalist person. Especially if he holds a loaded gun in his hands, demonstrating that he is strong enough to assert himself. He is not listening to you, he doesn't argue at all. He even may call you Skippy. I know, this could not be your REAL child, it is just a FICTIONAL one to demonstrate the above mentioned principle. You do not have to give up a grain from your principles, moral monolith etc. You just solve the problem. No "situationalism", no moral pressure from the majority. Will you convince him, will you argue? On what basis will you punish him (not spanking of course)? Will you somehow punish him at all? He has his OWN ideas, he is ADULT, he is right on his OWN. Do you have any logical argument? He is even stronger and faster than you. You being a weaker old one you no longer stay on EQUAL TERMS OR RIGHTS with him. Not to speak any respect, moral or other superiority. Your STATUS as a father is an EMPTY social construction, he has his OWN SET of moral values. Yours mean him nothing more than a "flying squirrel". Praise the young beast, you may wish to say with Zarathustra.
But seriously, please give LOGICAL arguments. I am ready to admit if I was wrong, but first try to argue.
This should be a Forum after all.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2001
- Messages
- 583
I did'nt quite understand all of Ishida Chicahiro's comments. But the general feeling I'm picking up is a desire for self-determination and liberty. I hope he finds those things and honors his family as well.
BTW.. Chic's written English is pretty good for a non-stateside student of our lauguage.
-Seth
BTW.. Chic's written English is pretty good for a non-stateside student of our lauguage.
-Seth
littleknkife, I think you have summed up the differences in 0ur societies rather well, and thank you for your efforts. I'm sorry, but to the others who harbor resentment towards the people of Japan in the year 2001, "grab your ears and pull" !!!
Will I forget "Pearl Harbor"--- NEVER!!! To harbor a vengence against another race/nation is self destructive. Let's not hurt ourselves more than "the enemy did" . I simply propose that on this forum, we exchange ideas and learn from one another.
Please give me more info on Japanese forged blades and other techniques used by "hand made cutlers" in Japan.------ thanks
Will I forget "Pearl Harbor"--- NEVER!!! To harbor a vengence against another race/nation is self destructive. Let's not hurt ourselves more than "the enemy did" . I simply propose that on this forum, we exchange ideas and learn from one another.
Please give me more info on Japanese forged blades and other techniques used by "hand made cutlers" in Japan.------ thanks
- Joined
- Sep 21, 1999
- Messages
- 762
Chicahiro,
Your situation sounds like a very difficult one indeed. The advice you received about following your father's wishes is right on... There is really nothing more important than family! No matter what decisions your parents have made and how you disagree it is readily apparent that they love you and make these choices based on love and respect and not wanting you or your family to be hurt.
With that in mind, could you not modify your interest in knives somewhat to include more 'History' about knives? So, rather than secretly practicing knife fighting you could possibly feed your knife interest by reading and researching the history of the knife. Starting with the Bowie knife and Western culture might be quite interesting as there is some conflict of ideas on who developed the 'first' bowie. Try a search on 'Bowie Knives', 'Jim Black' and perhaps someone else here can give you more information as the story is quite interesting.
With that type of approach you may be able to present it, if asked, to your parents as studying 'knife history' so you can more easily understand both sides and views. This approach would seem less aggressive perhaps and you would not risk such conflict with your parents.
No matter how people talk here, it is my opinion that most children in the US come to a time in their lives when they more readily accept the ways of their parents or at least come to respect their opinions in a different way than they did when they were younger... I know I would love to take back many hurtful things I said and many rebellious things I did in the past to cause my parents less sadness in their lives.
Choosing the path of love and respect is a very righteous thing to do.
Best of luck,
Shawn
Your situation sounds like a very difficult one indeed. The advice you received about following your father's wishes is right on... There is really nothing more important than family! No matter what decisions your parents have made and how you disagree it is readily apparent that they love you and make these choices based on love and respect and not wanting you or your family to be hurt.
With that in mind, could you not modify your interest in knives somewhat to include more 'History' about knives? So, rather than secretly practicing knife fighting you could possibly feed your knife interest by reading and researching the history of the knife. Starting with the Bowie knife and Western culture might be quite interesting as there is some conflict of ideas on who developed the 'first' bowie. Try a search on 'Bowie Knives', 'Jim Black' and perhaps someone else here can give you more information as the story is quite interesting.
With that type of approach you may be able to present it, if asked, to your parents as studying 'knife history' so you can more easily understand both sides and views. This approach would seem less aggressive perhaps and you would not risk such conflict with your parents.
No matter how people talk here, it is my opinion that most children in the US come to a time in their lives when they more readily accept the ways of their parents or at least come to respect their opinions in a different way than they did when they were younger... I know I would love to take back many hurtful things I said and many rebellious things I did in the past to cause my parents less sadness in their lives.
Choosing the path of love and respect is a very righteous thing to do.
Best of luck,
Shawn
- Joined
- Feb 22, 1999
- Messages
- 3,357
Good for you. You're the one who was complaining about not being treated as an equal.
"Logical inconsequences" is an interesting turn of phrase.
Neither will the doublespeak you've offered about "Roman conquerors" and other such nonsense.
1.) I don't care what you say.
My original argument was that you were wrong about what you believed I was saying. Though it's true that I indeed do not care what you have to say.
2.) you misinterpret me.
Which brings us back to 1.).
3.) you feel inferior, because you dared to challenge my suprematist views.
I don't have "suprematist views," whatever those might be. You complained of being treated as less than an equal; since that shouldn't have figured into it, I concluded it was some sort of insecurity on your part.
4.) you better learn your English if you want to challenge me.
Well, that's definitely true, though I would never say that.
5.) I'll try to provoke you, so I call you Skippy.
That certainly is among the most horrific, profane terms I could have used.
6.) You grant the POSSIBILITY that my cultural/ethical framework is not the only and rightly just one in the world, so your ethic is situational.
I don't think you understand the concept of situational ethics, or the point I was making, but okay.
7.) What I've said, I've said. I stick to it. My ethic is not a situational one, so that means I can not and I will not change my views.
Are you still arguing about my arguing, or arguing about your arguing? I have to admit this is becoming hard to follow.
A parent has every right to try and convince his ADULT child of anything he wishes -- but he has no authority to demand it. To demand that child comply even after the parent has died is particularly beyond the scope of parental authority.
Wow, you're really bitter about the whole Skippy thing, aren't you?
And here I thought you really were talking about Razor Junior. That little bastard. (Which he would literally have to be.)
Any of what you posted was logical? Well... Okay, if you say so.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2001
- Messages
- 1,794
Thank you, Chicahiro, for clearing up some things.
-Kitchen knives are "good," while pocket, hunting, and fighting knives are "bad." Apparently, there is a fairly large movement in Japan to brand these as "criminal knives," as opposed to historical, or artistic swords, which can be classed as more "cultural" (but which are also limited to those who can "afford" to have and appreciate them outside of a museum or TV show). This movement seems to be using billboards to spread this propaganda! It reminds me of the U.K. police and "crime prevention" websites that tell their subjects if they are threatened to not "have a go," as if fighting back was a form of entertainment to be enjoyed.
-Your father and family, and your close social circle are part of the "knives are very bad" movement. They are embarrassed about your interest, and worried you may become "criminal." Thus, your interest in ANY knives is now suspect, and you aren't allowed to use kitchen knives either, for fear it would encourage your "obscene" interest.
-Even if and when you do move out and get a job to support yourself, any "bad" knives you buy would have to stay hidden from your family, or you risk being rejected. You would literally have to have a "hiding place" for them in your own home!
-It seems to be worse than I first thought. You describe a large, "anti-knife" campaign going on. While kitchen knives are good, and traditional bladesmithing is "cultural" (and probably confined to the rich, a few artisans, or for "viewing only" entertainment purposes), any other knife is suspect, and increasingly going to be classified as "criminal." Parallels to the U.K. and it's war on self-defense are spooky, and perhaps worse in Japan, where there is no large immigrant influx and the homogeneity of the culture commands obedience from the population. (Remember too, the women's movement is still in it's infancy there, and the "ghost" of the war has a death grip on their culture.)
Littleknife brings up one of the most important realities for Chico, or, eventually, us. What will he (we) do when the threat of social ostracism or even incarceration becomes REAL? If Chico decides to "be his own man," (which it seems he must eventually do to stay true to his own heart), then he is certain to risk not only social condemnation from the community and the social climate at large, but he will also lose his family's support. Considering the economic situation there, I would not advise him to do anything about this until his financial situation allows him to support himself. But even if he moves out (by the way, I didn't move out of my parents' home until I was 26, so Chico, don't feel too bad!), he is not escaping the "anti-knife (criminal weapon)" climate.
The threat to his livelihood is real. And his country is so far "gone" that even if he decides to "come out" and fight it, he would possibly be on the level of a "North American Man-Boy Love Association" activist here in the U.S. Only here, the NAMBLA people are probably not as reviled?
Again, we see the "do" forms of the martial arts at work. They are necessary to transform the original killing arts into socially acceptable forms of expression, divorced of almost all original practicality. (This is probably true more for the weapons arts than for the empty hand arts.)
Chicahiro, you need to plan long and carefully about what you will do. You may one day decide to go against your father's wishes and break from the family. If you have outlets in kendo, or other arts, use them to learn as much as you can, especially in regards to inner discipline and mastery. Keep showing respect for others, but eventually you will not be happy bowing to their beliefs.
And keep hanging out here at Bladeforums when you can. Read and learn about weapons and self-defense and the other knife arts. It is not wrong to do so, although you may have to lead a "secret" computer life! Good luck.
This is a very illustrative thread.
Karl
-Kitchen knives are "good," while pocket, hunting, and fighting knives are "bad." Apparently, there is a fairly large movement in Japan to brand these as "criminal knives," as opposed to historical, or artistic swords, which can be classed as more "cultural" (but which are also limited to those who can "afford" to have and appreciate them outside of a museum or TV show). This movement seems to be using billboards to spread this propaganda! It reminds me of the U.K. police and "crime prevention" websites that tell their subjects if they are threatened to not "have a go," as if fighting back was a form of entertainment to be enjoyed.
-Your father and family, and your close social circle are part of the "knives are very bad" movement. They are embarrassed about your interest, and worried you may become "criminal." Thus, your interest in ANY knives is now suspect, and you aren't allowed to use kitchen knives either, for fear it would encourage your "obscene" interest.
-Even if and when you do move out and get a job to support yourself, any "bad" knives you buy would have to stay hidden from your family, or you risk being rejected. You would literally have to have a "hiding place" for them in your own home!
-It seems to be worse than I first thought. You describe a large, "anti-knife" campaign going on. While kitchen knives are good, and traditional bladesmithing is "cultural" (and probably confined to the rich, a few artisans, or for "viewing only" entertainment purposes), any other knife is suspect, and increasingly going to be classified as "criminal." Parallels to the U.K. and it's war on self-defense are spooky, and perhaps worse in Japan, where there is no large immigrant influx and the homogeneity of the culture commands obedience from the population. (Remember too, the women's movement is still in it's infancy there, and the "ghost" of the war has a death grip on their culture.)
Littleknife brings up one of the most important realities for Chico, or, eventually, us. What will he (we) do when the threat of social ostracism or even incarceration becomes REAL? If Chico decides to "be his own man," (which it seems he must eventually do to stay true to his own heart), then he is certain to risk not only social condemnation from the community and the social climate at large, but he will also lose his family's support. Considering the economic situation there, I would not advise him to do anything about this until his financial situation allows him to support himself. But even if he moves out (by the way, I didn't move out of my parents' home until I was 26, so Chico, don't feel too bad!), he is not escaping the "anti-knife (criminal weapon)" climate.
The threat to his livelihood is real. And his country is so far "gone" that even if he decides to "come out" and fight it, he would possibly be on the level of a "North American Man-Boy Love Association" activist here in the U.S. Only here, the NAMBLA people are probably not as reviled?
Again, we see the "do" forms of the martial arts at work. They are necessary to transform the original killing arts into socially acceptable forms of expression, divorced of almost all original practicality. (This is probably true more for the weapons arts than for the empty hand arts.)
Chicahiro, you need to plan long and carefully about what you will do. You may one day decide to go against your father's wishes and break from the family. If you have outlets in kendo, or other arts, use them to learn as much as you can, especially in regards to inner discipline and mastery. Keep showing respect for others, but eventually you will not be happy bowing to their beliefs.
And keep hanging out here at Bladeforums when you can. Read and learn about weapons and self-defense and the other knife arts. It is not wrong to do so, although you may have to lead a "secret" computer life! Good luck.
This is a very illustrative thread.
Karl
- Joined
- Feb 22, 1999
- Messages
- 3,357
Karl, the issues you raise regarding societal prejudice against knives are already becoming critical for United States gun owners, who face vilification at every turn and who will eventually be forced to decide whether or not to comply with various confiscation schemes. I would guess a great many of them, despite the dangers of alienating themselves from their countrymen and families, will resist giving up their arms in the face of increasingly oppressive government. They are, even now, considered deviants or "anti-social" by a great many of their brothers and sisters. A crude animation on the Handgun Control, Incorporated web site, depicting Charleton Heston hijacking a plane full of horrified Modern Liberals, is typical of this crusade to ostracize gun owners. The link between firearms and knives cannot be denied.
not2sharp
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 1999
- Messages
- 20,462
Razor,
With all due respect the U.S. is no where near there, either with guns or knives, there is a movement afoot that would perhaps like to get us there. But, ownership on both counts is continuing to increase, and this issue is no where near resolved. Furthermore, we are anything but a homogeneous culture, non-comformity is still esteemed, and the level of internal stress makes any real attempt at a radical change dangerously foolhardy. The most we are going to do is drag ourselves into a replay of the prohibition debacle.
I doubt that any of our be gun ban enthusiats have bothered to understand what the consequences of their actions might be, nor do I believe that even the most virolent voices for the cause seriously want this result any time soon. The gun ban advocates are a business, and their mission is to grow and stay in business. If you win then they might find themselves out of business.
N2S
With all due respect the U.S. is no where near there, either with guns or knives, there is a movement afoot that would perhaps like to get us there. But, ownership on both counts is continuing to increase, and this issue is no where near resolved. Furthermore, we are anything but a homogeneous culture, non-comformity is still esteemed, and the level of internal stress makes any real attempt at a radical change dangerously foolhardy. The most we are going to do is drag ourselves into a replay of the prohibition debacle.
I doubt that any of our be gun ban enthusiats have bothered to understand what the consequences of their actions might be, nor do I believe that even the most virolent voices for the cause seriously want this result any time soon. The gun ban advocates are a business, and their mission is to grow and stay in business. If you win then they might find themselves out of business.
N2S
- Joined
- Feb 22, 1999
- Messages
- 3,357
We may not be there yet, but we're heading there very quickly. School "zero tolerance" policies, under which children have been disciplined or even expelled for drawing pictures of guns or carrying nail clippers with one-inch blades are a good gauge of the increasingly pervasive nature of the problem.
Let's see, you're 26, but if you live under his roof you have to obey his wishes.
My advice is to move out and become "king of your own castle". Then you can buy as many blades as you like. Your father will just have to understand that you are a man and not a little boy anymore.
We all want to please our parents no matter how old we are, but you also have to know when to NOT obey them.
BTW, How old is your father? Some folks get alittle strange or extreme in their later years.
And I love my Spyderco Rescue, made in SEKI-CITY JAPAN!
Good luck,
Allen.
My advice is to move out and become "king of your own castle". Then you can buy as many blades as you like. Your father will just have to understand that you are a man and not a little boy anymore.
We all want to please our parents no matter how old we are, but you also have to know when to NOT obey them.
BTW, How old is your father? Some folks get alittle strange or extreme in their later years.
And I love my Spyderco Rescue, made in SEKI-CITY JAPAN!
Good luck,
Allen.
not2sharp
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 1999
- Messages
- 20,462
What happening in our schools bothers me too. They are failing to educate; and the kids are being conditioned to submit, and yield their rights and protections. Only, time will tell how this plays out. As adults, these kids might just rebel against authority, and their indifferent ignorant parents. Remember the 60s...
n2s
n2s
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2001
- Messages
- 1,794
Razor is right: at least in certain limited areas of the U.S. Morton Grove, Brook Park, Washington D.C. And in California, owners of certain "assault weapons" (sic) are under siege.
But with the Bush administration in power now, a few things are looking up. Plus the trend in allowing more liberalized CCW across the U.S.
We are in a critical phase, however, and should not take what's left of our freedoms for granted.
This past week I received a letter from the Ohio BMV requesting proof of insurance. No, I didn't get anyone's attention from what I had done, this is just a "random check." You see, I can't be trusted, and for certain PC things, "probable cause" simply isn't needed anymore.
Roadblocks are now commonly used for checks for drunken drivers, as well as anything else suspicious or illegal while talking to the nice officers. I don't mind impromptu roadblocks set up for the sole purpose of looking for escapees, or stolen nuclear weapons, but this usage again does not rely on probable cause, and resembles "fishing expeditions" more than legitimate reasoning.
Our freedoms are being whittled at constantly.
Karl
But with the Bush administration in power now, a few things are looking up. Plus the trend in allowing more liberalized CCW across the U.S.
We are in a critical phase, however, and should not take what's left of our freedoms for granted.
This past week I received a letter from the Ohio BMV requesting proof of insurance. No, I didn't get anyone's attention from what I had done, this is just a "random check." You see, I can't be trusted, and for certain PC things, "probable cause" simply isn't needed anymore.
Roadblocks are now commonly used for checks for drunken drivers, as well as anything else suspicious or illegal while talking to the nice officers. I don't mind impromptu roadblocks set up for the sole purpose of looking for escapees, or stolen nuclear weapons, but this usage again does not rely on probable cause, and resembles "fishing expeditions" more than legitimate reasoning.
Our freedoms are being whittled at constantly.
Karl
I hope one day Chicahiro, that you will be able to find a way to stay in favor with your family and also, on your own, pursue your interests.
I am 3rd-generation Japanese-American, but my father grew up on a farm in Ventura, CA, before WWII, youngest of 9 children. His father was old-country, very, very strict. Yet throughout his life, my father carried/used various folding knives. After being released from the "relocation" camp in Poston, Arizona, he worked all his life blue collar jobs...tuna boat fisherman, gardener. His knives were mostly Camillus multi-blade pocketknives, most with blades sharpened down to unrecognizable shapes. He even gave me a Camillus military switchblade a friend had given him. After he passed away, I discovered his very old and much-used Buck 110 with convex edge grind.
Perhaps I am lucky because not only did he come from an earlier generation, but most certainly due to doing hard work with his hands, and a love for the outdoors, he had a knowledge and appreciation of the need for a good knife. He was a bit puzzled as to why I "needed" so many knives, but my owning the knives never bothered him.
I feel a lot of the anti-knife mentality of today is from new-age liberals who have NEVER worked with their hands. Hell, even one time a few years ago when a friend and I were discussing knives, a young woman asked WHY would we carry knives? I gave her one example that you could cut yourself free from a jammed seatbelt following an accident. She told me she would claw her way out with her bare hands and teeth before she'd use a knife to free herself. She overestimates herself; I know of at least one person who burned to death in a car because the seatbelt jammed and construction workers could not pull the person out.
Jim
I am 3rd-generation Japanese-American, but my father grew up on a farm in Ventura, CA, before WWII, youngest of 9 children. His father was old-country, very, very strict. Yet throughout his life, my father carried/used various folding knives. After being released from the "relocation" camp in Poston, Arizona, he worked all his life blue collar jobs...tuna boat fisherman, gardener. His knives were mostly Camillus multi-blade pocketknives, most with blades sharpened down to unrecognizable shapes. He even gave me a Camillus military switchblade a friend had given him. After he passed away, I discovered his very old and much-used Buck 110 with convex edge grind.
Perhaps I am lucky because not only did he come from an earlier generation, but most certainly due to doing hard work with his hands, and a love for the outdoors, he had a knowledge and appreciation of the need for a good knife. He was a bit puzzled as to why I "needed" so many knives, but my owning the knives never bothered him.
I feel a lot of the anti-knife mentality of today is from new-age liberals who have NEVER worked with their hands. Hell, even one time a few years ago when a friend and I were discussing knives, a young woman asked WHY would we carry knives? I gave her one example that you could cut yourself free from a jammed seatbelt following an accident. She told me she would claw her way out with her bare hands and teeth before she'd use a knife to free herself. She overestimates herself; I know of at least one person who burned to death in a car because the seatbelt jammed and construction workers could not pull the person out.
Jim
- Joined
- May 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,871
Well, I left this thread last night with a reply to littleknife and returned today to some interesting responses. Chic's additional information was very helpful to me, littleknife's a bit confusing, but I think I get his drift, Razor continues his steadfast ethical integrity, although I detect some ad hominem argument in there somewhere, and others have chimed in with good advice.
Family is important, personal integrity is more important. The former is a biological construct probably necessary for the continuation of our species, the latter is an intellectual imperative absolutely necessary for the survival of intelligence on this little planet. If Japanese culture has taken a direction in which knives and knife owners are villified, the culture has already fallen into the Orwellian abyss. Revolution and counter-revolution starts with personal integrity and expands because of it. It need not be violent, and in fact some of the more successful changes that have occurred in history happened without violent conflict. These events are not recognized as revolutions per se for exactly that reason. You are reading this on a device that has and is quietly and quickly changing the world, for example. As Marshall McLuhan pointed out long ago, we now live in a global village (and I'm not talking about one world government), and to continue that metaphor, the world's various nations represent communities within that village. When a community within the village begins to take an irrational course, it is the responsibility of those who guard the concept of personal integrity to point out the absurdity and do their best to offer assistance to get things back on a rational track. Because this is a metaphor, personal integrity can and does equate to community and global village integrity. Obediance to one's father does not take precedence over rational integrity! Obediance to one's culture does not take precedence over rational integrity! Obediance to one's nation does not take precedence over rational integrity. If we do not fight this at every opportunity, sentience is suborned by irrational absurdity and we might as well all become nihilists and use our knives to slit our own wrists. America, flawed in practice as it may be, is founded on the principal of personal integrity, not blind obediance to an external construct (government, religion, etc.). If it were not for our Constitutional rights to things like freedom of religion, and our (I'm speaking as an American) continuing efforts to guard against the erosion of our rights to personal integrity, we would no doubt be living in a community that prescribes our religious beliefs and censors those who attempt to publically believe otherwise. Nothing less than this is occurring in Japan with knives. What will be next? Chica, if you feel deeply you must act deeply or become nothing more significant than a rock picked up and tossed aside by someone with intent. The method you choose to express this integrity is practically infinite, but by all means choose.
Family is important, personal integrity is more important. The former is a biological construct probably necessary for the continuation of our species, the latter is an intellectual imperative absolutely necessary for the survival of intelligence on this little planet. If Japanese culture has taken a direction in which knives and knife owners are villified, the culture has already fallen into the Orwellian abyss. Revolution and counter-revolution starts with personal integrity and expands because of it. It need not be violent, and in fact some of the more successful changes that have occurred in history happened without violent conflict. These events are not recognized as revolutions per se for exactly that reason. You are reading this on a device that has and is quietly and quickly changing the world, for example. As Marshall McLuhan pointed out long ago, we now live in a global village (and I'm not talking about one world government), and to continue that metaphor, the world's various nations represent communities within that village. When a community within the village begins to take an irrational course, it is the responsibility of those who guard the concept of personal integrity to point out the absurdity and do their best to offer assistance to get things back on a rational track. Because this is a metaphor, personal integrity can and does equate to community and global village integrity. Obediance to one's father does not take precedence over rational integrity! Obediance to one's culture does not take precedence over rational integrity! Obediance to one's nation does not take precedence over rational integrity. If we do not fight this at every opportunity, sentience is suborned by irrational absurdity and we might as well all become nihilists and use our knives to slit our own wrists. America, flawed in practice as it may be, is founded on the principal of personal integrity, not blind obediance to an external construct (government, religion, etc.). If it were not for our Constitutional rights to things like freedom of religion, and our (I'm speaking as an American) continuing efforts to guard against the erosion of our rights to personal integrity, we would no doubt be living in a community that prescribes our religious beliefs and censors those who attempt to publically believe otherwise. Nothing less than this is occurring in Japan with knives. What will be next? Chica, if you feel deeply you must act deeply or become nothing more significant than a rock picked up and tossed aside by someone with intent. The method you choose to express this integrity is practically infinite, but by all means choose.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2000
- Messages
- 1,926
Razoredj, now I'll try to explain why you behave as a teenager.
First of all, SITUATIONAL ETHIC is dealing with people according to the actual situations (not necesseraly worse than others ethics) GRANTED you and they have a common cultural framework. You understand what are their values and they understand yours. But this attitude just doesn't work if you or they or both of you lack the understanding what is going on. You do not have to agree with the other's principles but you MUST KNOW what he means and he MUST KNOW what you mean.
You first lacked to understand what is his REAL situation, later on you just did not want to admit it is not as simple as it seems to you. You declared Chicahiro acted QUOTE: histerycally and not as a grown up. Your description/evaluation of this situation was based on your principles only.
The concept of situational ethic is just MEANINGLESS when there is a more basic cultural divide first of all. First you have to prove your principles are better than the other ones but that REQUIRES comparison. For comparison you have to try to understand what are the other's principles/choices/possibilities and have to make sure the other person understands your point of view clearly. This accomplished you may or may not act according to a situational ethic.
But when you demand the other to understand your intentions clearly but you do not take the smallest effort to understand him, now that is called SUPREMATIST attitude.
One of MY MORAL PRINCIPLES IS: I do not take granted the fact who I am. The fact of being born and brought up here or there is a MERE CHANCE, PERSONAL LUCK OR MISFORTUNE and NOT A WELL DESERVED RIGHT or ACHIEVMENT. You may or may not have the freedom and multitude of choices you take so granted. If you are an otrthodox Jew, a Hindu or Buddhist or a Lutheran this may be not acceptable for you. Even non religious persons take their positions quite frequently granted. You may change and forge your "fate" but you are not a sole master of your own existence. Social/historical/cultural/economical reality has its influence on you. If you are fortunate, you may have more chices with less efforts or fatal/disastrous consequences. DO NOT THINK YOUR POSITION IS GENERAL AND GRANTED!
I can not tell what are you thinking you are but I can tell what kind of a worldview your statements imply, granted you stick to the commonly accepted meaning of words and rules of reasoning. (I am a Westerner after all too, I know to some extent the social reality you and me live in.)
Now I will DEMONSTRATE you wehy your "Be a man or be a slave Chicahiro." statement is wrong and why this PROVES YOUR VIEW IS A SUPREMATIST ONE.
You indeed were aware that Chicahiro is not American and he is not living around the block. But yoy EXPECT him he accepts the "rules" (your rules) as and if he was here. For the time being you unacceptably generalize youyr own point of view.
Unacceptably, because you just make a statement but do not prove that this is and should be a timeless and crosscultural general moral rule. (Grownups leave their families and act according to their own desires only. Otherwise they are TOTALLY DEPRESSED, SLAVES IN EVERY RESPECT, THEY ARE JUST TOOLS FOR THE TYRANT HEAD OF THE FAMILY AND DO NOT GET ANYTHING BACK FOR THEIR LOVE, RESPECT, LOYALTY.)
I do not see how you can prove your point of view. Please, at least try.
Indeed I think I can prove the opposite. History and the FACT of EXISTENCE of multiple cultures, moral systems demonstrate your values are not general. As moral values are not Platonic entities existing independently of the real people who share/create/obey them you can not claim they are NATURAL OBJECTIVE FACTS. It is not like the case of Copernicus, Galilei and Kepler who being a minority still were right opposed to the 'common sense' of their time.
If yor principles were general they MAY HAVE OR MAY HEVE NOT BEEN RIGHT, becuse for a moral pribciple to be crossculturally right its generality is only a necessive but not sufficient quality.
Your principles are not general SO THEY CAN NOT BE CROSCULTURALLY RIGHT.
Your advice was honest but wrong. WRONG because it was based on FALSE PROPOSAL.
You were and still are convinced you are right but you even DID NOT CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MAY BE WRONG. That is why YOUR ATTITUDE MEANS SUPREMATISM.
Of course I am not saying you are suprematist in every respect the term suprematism is used (e.g. for the concept of racism or cultural supremacy). You may or may be not any of these too, but this is not what your statement implies. Your supremacy was a kind of moral supremacy, the attitude you not only do not consider to take other's point of view but you also condemn this as a "situational ethic".
I myself do not like the pure situational ethic advertised in our everyday pop-culture and entertaintment/advertisement/brainwashing industry. Teaching and learning history, literature, art, philosophy, natural sciences, social studies, technique etc. gives more knowledge and gives you more chances and freedom. Style without thought is a technique only, sorrily used to confuse, brainwash and dominate people. You apparently are familiar with Socratic IRONY. bUT YOUY DEMONSTRATED, YOU - FOR THE TIME BEING - LACK THE reasoning skills NECESSARY TO MAKE THE IRONY EFFECTIVE. Your intentions may be pure and honest but the way you ACT just HELPS the cause of those who would like to suppress others people's freedom for the sake of their power and wealth.
So ARGUMENTS, please, not mudding.
First of all, SITUATIONAL ETHIC is dealing with people according to the actual situations (not necesseraly worse than others ethics) GRANTED you and they have a common cultural framework. You understand what are their values and they understand yours. But this attitude just doesn't work if you or they or both of you lack the understanding what is going on. You do not have to agree with the other's principles but you MUST KNOW what he means and he MUST KNOW what you mean.
You first lacked to understand what is his REAL situation, later on you just did not want to admit it is not as simple as it seems to you. You declared Chicahiro acted QUOTE: histerycally and not as a grown up. Your description/evaluation of this situation was based on your principles only.
The concept of situational ethic is just MEANINGLESS when there is a more basic cultural divide first of all. First you have to prove your principles are better than the other ones but that REQUIRES comparison. For comparison you have to try to understand what are the other's principles/choices/possibilities and have to make sure the other person understands your point of view clearly. This accomplished you may or may not act according to a situational ethic.
But when you demand the other to understand your intentions clearly but you do not take the smallest effort to understand him, now that is called SUPREMATIST attitude.
One of MY MORAL PRINCIPLES IS: I do not take granted the fact who I am. The fact of being born and brought up here or there is a MERE CHANCE, PERSONAL LUCK OR MISFORTUNE and NOT A WELL DESERVED RIGHT or ACHIEVMENT. You may or may not have the freedom and multitude of choices you take so granted. If you are an otrthodox Jew, a Hindu or Buddhist or a Lutheran this may be not acceptable for you. Even non religious persons take their positions quite frequently granted. You may change and forge your "fate" but you are not a sole master of your own existence. Social/historical/cultural/economical reality has its influence on you. If you are fortunate, you may have more chices with less efforts or fatal/disastrous consequences. DO NOT THINK YOUR POSITION IS GENERAL AND GRANTED!
I can not tell what are you thinking you are but I can tell what kind of a worldview your statements imply, granted you stick to the commonly accepted meaning of words and rules of reasoning. (I am a Westerner after all too, I know to some extent the social reality you and me live in.)
Now I will DEMONSTRATE you wehy your "Be a man or be a slave Chicahiro." statement is wrong and why this PROVES YOUR VIEW IS A SUPREMATIST ONE.
You indeed were aware that Chicahiro is not American and he is not living around the block. But yoy EXPECT him he accepts the "rules" (your rules) as and if he was here. For the time being you unacceptably generalize youyr own point of view.
Unacceptably, because you just make a statement but do not prove that this is and should be a timeless and crosscultural general moral rule. (Grownups leave their families and act according to their own desires only. Otherwise they are TOTALLY DEPRESSED, SLAVES IN EVERY RESPECT, THEY ARE JUST TOOLS FOR THE TYRANT HEAD OF THE FAMILY AND DO NOT GET ANYTHING BACK FOR THEIR LOVE, RESPECT, LOYALTY.)
I do not see how you can prove your point of view. Please, at least try.
Indeed I think I can prove the opposite. History and the FACT of EXISTENCE of multiple cultures, moral systems demonstrate your values are not general. As moral values are not Platonic entities existing independently of the real people who share/create/obey them you can not claim they are NATURAL OBJECTIVE FACTS. It is not like the case of Copernicus, Galilei and Kepler who being a minority still were right opposed to the 'common sense' of their time.
If yor principles were general they MAY HAVE OR MAY HEVE NOT BEEN RIGHT, becuse for a moral pribciple to be crossculturally right its generality is only a necessive but not sufficient quality.
Your principles are not general SO THEY CAN NOT BE CROSCULTURALLY RIGHT.
Your advice was honest but wrong. WRONG because it was based on FALSE PROPOSAL.
You were and still are convinced you are right but you even DID NOT CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT YOU MAY BE WRONG. That is why YOUR ATTITUDE MEANS SUPREMATISM.
Of course I am not saying you are suprematist in every respect the term suprematism is used (e.g. for the concept of racism or cultural supremacy). You may or may be not any of these too, but this is not what your statement implies. Your supremacy was a kind of moral supremacy, the attitude you not only do not consider to take other's point of view but you also condemn this as a "situational ethic".
I myself do not like the pure situational ethic advertised in our everyday pop-culture and entertaintment/advertisement/brainwashing industry. Teaching and learning history, literature, art, philosophy, natural sciences, social studies, technique etc. gives more knowledge and gives you more chances and freedom. Style without thought is a technique only, sorrily used to confuse, brainwash and dominate people. You apparently are familiar with Socratic IRONY. bUT YOUY DEMONSTRATED, YOU - FOR THE TIME BEING - LACK THE reasoning skills NECESSARY TO MAKE THE IRONY EFFECTIVE. Your intentions may be pure and honest but the way you ACT just HELPS the cause of those who would like to suppress others people's freedom for the sake of their power and wealth.
So ARGUMENTS, please, not mudding.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2000
- Messages
- 1,926
Steelhed, I just now read your reply. I totally agree that rational integrity in modern societies is more important than other values. The problem is, and this is reflected by Chicahiro's dilemma that nowadays Japan is a society with modern technology but contradicting traditional moral values. The traditional and the modern values are intermixed but not harmonized.
On the other hand the attitude to knivesreflects their everyday life. There is almost no outdoor use, the main use is associated with crime. This a kind of reality which is raising here in the U.S too. More and more people live/work in big cities, outdoor activity is less and less prevalent compared to the past. Still there is quality difference.
Attitudes and laws could be changedin any society. Sorrily it is a slow and painful process if it is done from inside and is not imposed by a conquest. Freedom is always challenged. But there are other social realities too. The modern Western family slowly disintegrates. The traditional values dictated by the harsh realities are not a necessity anymore but there is not a clear and accepted moral code what it should be instead. You say we still define the Western family compared to the traditional ones BUT IN NEGATIVE TERMS.
Our values are influencing all the societies across the globe but the change is not a magical moment and is painful, controversial.
All I suggested Chicahiro tries to solve his problem within his family and not to break out immediately. Once again, it is difficult to understand this to someone who was never exposed to a traditional society. Belive me, it is not easy, especially if you are not a victim in other aspects.
On the other hand the attitude to knivesreflects their everyday life. There is almost no outdoor use, the main use is associated with crime. This a kind of reality which is raising here in the U.S too. More and more people live/work in big cities, outdoor activity is less and less prevalent compared to the past. Still there is quality difference.
Attitudes and laws could be changedin any society. Sorrily it is a slow and painful process if it is done from inside and is not imposed by a conquest. Freedom is always challenged. But there are other social realities too. The modern Western family slowly disintegrates. The traditional values dictated by the harsh realities are not a necessity anymore but there is not a clear and accepted moral code what it should be instead. You say we still define the Western family compared to the traditional ones BUT IN NEGATIVE TERMS.
Our values are influencing all the societies across the globe but the change is not a magical moment and is painful, controversial.
All I suggested Chicahiro tries to solve his problem within his family and not to break out immediately. Once again, it is difficult to understand this to someone who was never exposed to a traditional society. Belive me, it is not easy, especially if you are not a victim in other aspects.
- Joined
- May 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,871
Littleknife, situational ethics is an oxymoron, and has nothing to do with Socratic irony. While facts and truth are not necessarily interchangeable, you cannot refute that a hierarchy of ideas exists. If you talk about situational ethics as politics, then I can see your point. The politics of experience underpins most of today's existential philosophy. But even the most ardent existentialist today will admit ethical consistency offers the best ontological answer. I see considerable ethical and ontological constitency in Razor's posts. This does not make him a supremist anymore than Plato was a supremist for establishing his ideological hierarchy. If you choose to take him on, be prepared to suffer his wit and barb for what it is, and remember rhetoric has its place. The fact that you have zeroed in on his responses means he has caught you to the point where you have lost the original thread. What is Chicahura to do?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 1999
- Messages
- 3,357
A fair assessment. (Though I didn't intend ad hominem assaults; I simply treat with some sarcasm and levity what I consider to be hysterical or false indictments.)
Wow. I have to admit, with an opener like that, you're certainly setting the stage for constructive debate and logical, critical thinking, which you seem to so admire in your demand for "argument, not mudding." Bravo.
Situational ethics is altering or changing one's moral and ethical principles pragmatically or expediently to suit the situation at hand. If I claim I believe in the free market, for instance, but I then claim electricity prices should be regulated by the government because it is wrong that I should have to pay so much to air condition my home, I am displaying situational ethics. Situational ethics is not attempting to apply one's moral code to a given situation; it is changing one's morals to suit the situation.
I will state again: one's moral and ethical principles are standards by which one must live one's life, consistently, or one has no moral code. If I tell a repressed Japanese adult that I believe in freedom and individuality, but in his situation I do not believe in those things, I am displaying situational ethics. That is something I cannot and will not do, and the source of what appears to bother you so much. If I comment on a situation, I will apply my principles consistently to that situation.
If one's principles change with the tides, one has no principles at all.
I declared his father's irrational hatred of pocketknives hysterical. I questioned whether Chic himself was acting as an adult. This is not quite the same as what you've written.
That is true. I will not apologize for adherence to a moral code of conduct and a consistent philosophical system of belief.
My moral principles are not determined by Japanse culture, that is true.
I don't have to prove any such thing. Anyone is free to ignore what I have to say, or free to excoriate me (as you have done) for saying it. That is the purpose of a discussion such as this one.
The word you're looking for, apparently, is supremacist, though in this case the idea you're really applying is ethnocentrism. I suggest you refrain from capping misspelled words, as it only draws attention to them.
I believe my principles are correct. That is not to say that I demand all others live by them. However, when someone asks me for advice, those principles are the framework on which I base that advice. Call that "suprematist" if you like.
Well, hooray. If you have an external locus of control, great. Mine's internal.
The fact that choosing liberty may be difficult does not make it wrong. You seem to be arguing that things are only correct if they are easy to do, or if choosing them brings with that choice no negative consequences.
You've reminded me of my favorite poem:
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as a pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud,
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years finds,
and shall find me, unafraid.
It matters not how straight the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.
<FONT SIZE=1>by William Ernest Henley</FONT SIZE=1>
Don't shout. It makes you seem ruffled.
Wow, I must really be a bear to debate with, what with all that insistence on using the actual meaning of words, and applying basic reason to them.
There you go with that "suprematist" business again. I really suggest you stop that. It looks really silly, especially in all-caps. Oh, you know what? I just remembered: it is a word:
So you're going to demonstrate, to chilling logical effect, that my attitude is, in fact, one of a Russian geometric abstract artist. I am so insulted.
Sort of. I think the word you're looking for is "oppressed," not "depressed," though of course it would be a fairly depressing way to live.
Why?
Actually, one's morals are based on one's standard of value (what is "good" and what is "evil.") There are a great many standards of value, but the ones that most directly correspond with objective reality are based not on subjective cultural opinions, but on that objective reality. See below -- this material was too long to fit here. Refer to the "Moral Definition" post below.
One's morals ought not be determined by culture, but by objective reality.
I considered it, and decided I was, in fact, correct. Now stop accusing me of being a Russian abstract geometric artist. You'll give them a bad name.
Actually, as previously discussed, suprematism refers to Russian abstract geometric art.
Yup, you sure did peg me, all right. Faulty reasoning skills might make you look pretty silly -- such as repeatedly accusing someone of being an abstract geometric artist from Russia.
Or for the sake of forcing them to obey your hoplophobic dictates from beyond the grave?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 1999
- Messages
- 3,357
...as cross-referenced above:
Thanks and apologies yet again to Leonard Peikoff:
Obviously, one could attempt to use this as justification for pragmatism: if the mob is angered by what I have to say, they might kill me, so what is "good" is to go along with their dictates even if I do not agree. This, in fact, is not living at all; it is being subjected to force. I posted on that extensively here; you may perform a search in the political form for post content involving "non-initiation of force" if you wish to see it. I think I've posted this one piece of text plenty of times, by now.
Thanks and apologies yet again to Leonard Peikoff:
Obviously, one could attempt to use this as justification for pragmatism: if the mob is angered by what I have to say, they might kill me, so what is "good" is to go along with their dictates even if I do not agree. This, in fact, is not living at all; it is being subjected to force. I posted on that extensively here; you may perform a search in the political form for post content involving "non-initiation of force" if you wish to see it. I think I've posted this one piece of text plenty of times, by now.