As you 'like' it

What, did they lose ?

How do you define "lose"?

How do you define "lose"?

Note the comma after "what"......;)

Nothing is so destructive to intimacy as a crowd........

I know what you mean and it can often be true, but some of my more intimate art experiences have been live theater and concerts with big audiences. A lot of people don’t like crowds. I feel at home in a lot of crowds, especially when sharing performed art or entertainment.

I know what you mean and it can often be true, but some of my more intimate art experiences have been live theater and concerts with big audiences. A lot of people don’t like crowds. I feel at home in a lot of crowds, especially when sharing performed art or entertainment.

Would they have been more intimate, were you the only observer?

For me, much less intimate if I were the only one in the audience. I’ve done it both ways, by the way. Have been able to sit in as the only audience member on several dress rehearsals. I didn’t find that nearly as intimate as sharing the space and experience with others. I think there’s a kind of passion that breathes through an audience at great theatrical and performance events that’s significantly intimate.

I also prefer going out to movies than watching at home alone. The projection is usually better but I also like what the crowd brings to the big screen.

I just don't use the "LIKE" function.

 

Works for me.;)

There is nothing special about group thinking when it applies to left or right. It happens in every sphere, from religion to lunch clubs, even in the scientific community (with the ironical lack of rational reasoning). While I don't condone bullying or suppression of free speech, I also don't appreciate when people assert their own right of expression at the expense of marginalizing others. There has to be a balance between my freedom of expression and another's right to normalcy in the society. That common ground is what is termed decency. Yes, I believe speaking one's mind or expressing one's opinion in public (especially biased beliefs and dogmas) can be hurtful to ethnic or other minority groups and it's often unfathomable without being in the proper shoes. Not being a 'sissy' or 'not acting the victim' or 'acting strong' doesn't take away the pain one suffers from someone's dogmatic 'speaking of mind'. So I think, the responsibility for social unity has to be shared by all groups of people. Those who want to speak their minds, perhaps could become better informed through private discussions first before voicing in public. On the other hand, the so called 'radical left' could bring more patience and forgiveness to their attitude, because tolerance (of each other, not of injustice) fosters further tolerance.

“I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”

 

― John Wayne as J.B. Books

 

Works for me.

There has to be a balance between my freedom of expression and another's right to normalcy in the society.

What does that have to do with hitting the "Like" button on a poster's photos, Supriyo?

Yes, I believe speaking one's mind or expressing one's opinion in public (especially biased beliefs and dogmas) can be hurtful to ethnic or other minority groups and it's often unfathomable without being in the proper shoes.

Where in this discussion has anyone said anything hurtful to minorities? And who gets to draw the line at what qualifies as normalcy and decency? Your opinions on what you think is decency as limits on public expression is the very definition of group think. Your group, Supriyo.

It simply isn't practical to legislate thought.

Societies legislate behavior which is to some extent more realistic.

You can think about wanting to clock the cop writing the ticket.

You might get away saying you'd like to.

Doing it is not acceptable, nor is it without serious consequences in any civil society.

 

Most adults know these things.

Groupthink seeks to legislate thought. Edited February 8, 2018 by Moving On

It's the difference and overlap between what Nietzsche described as 'slave morality' and 'master morality' that needs to be integrated into the whole of society. The left claims too much possession of one and the right too much of the other. History has showed that the strict legislation of either one will result in pure chaos and suffering. Which doesn't mean that the alternative of following basic and overlapping human(e) and ethical principles (for all forms of life) shouldn't or can't be legislated as a means of being and thought.

The world isn't as orderly as you've outlined, Phil. There's more SNAFU's than can be anticipated where kneejerk political views lacking any facts come in to fill this void of ignorance about this reality and offer nothing but simplistic answers with an air of authority for good measure while neither side wants to sacrifice to do anything about making society better.

Think of humanity as monkeys chattering in the trees....our cousins.

 

The monkey which trumpets the loudest is the one which is followed...."it trumpets danger "the rest of the monkeys follow.

 

Individual monkey thought is not a requirement.

Think of humanity as monkeys chattering in the trees....our cousins.

 

The monkey which trumpets the loudest is the one which is followed...."it trumpets danger "the rest of the monkeys follow.

 

Individual monkey thought is not a requirement.

Humans are far more complex than that analogy suggests. Simplistic answers don't solve problems. You need a forensic scientist to sort out human nature.

 

Here's my simplistic answer on the subject. Humans are mentally ill animals in denial.

The biggest monkey in the troop has the girls and the first choice of food.

 

The monkey which we call humanity....?

"Simplistic answers don't solve problems "Tim.

 

Simplistic answers are often the solution to most problems. We just like to cloak these answers in innuendoes to satisfy our basic animistic natures.

 

For instance one man has more food than he can possibly eat. Another man has little or no food to sustain his life.

 

Need I say more.

"Well yes, you do need to say more. Is your comparison based on a benevolence towards the latter or is it based on a malevolence towards the former?"Phil.

 

Neither.

 

Just as in in the monkey troop so it is with our monkey troop.

 

The way it is. You call the moral judgment if any.

.

"It has to be based on something. Find out what that is before pointing fingers at the world"

 

Based on the monkey troop. What finger pointing?

 

The way it is. .

 

Although there was this bloke, in a good book, made a whip of cords , he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

 

Hey, I was not there so I don't know the truth of the matter.

Hey, don't get me wrong I'm no different from anyone else......just making an observation.

Cohen is gospel as far as I'm concerned. The hell with Dylan and his...whatever.

Don't criticize what you don't understand Phil!

LOL

:rolleyes:

Eminem

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha!

Cohen to win the Nobel

I guess, others have won it for nothing. Surprised you haven't brought up Country Joe.

And comparing Dylan to Cohen is like comparing Bieber to Shakespeare.

You're the only one who's done that here. No one else felt the need to compare them let alone pit them against each other. LOL. Remember now, we're the ones accused by you of pitting left and right against each other. But you're obviously much wiser, pitting Dylan against Cohen. Now, am I supposed to say "Period" to be emphatic?