1a2bcio8

Hey, I'm not perfect Intellect and feeling don't always go hand in hand. And anyway, my lacking annoyance still probably wouldn't have stopped me from mocking your point of view. I suspect you don't like lots of things; that often things don't correlate with your expectations causing you to react strongy against them. I'm not having a dig here. I just did a similar thing albeit in a seeminlgy less intense way than yourself. I'm not taking the piss either; just being curious. I have friends who are similar to how I just described. Not liking the majority of their environment must suck. Maybe I'm wrong about you though in that regard?

I feel for you. Looks nasty. Hope it heals asap

Once again another assumption has been made, someone thinking that I am telling them what to think I'm certainly not! I'm just making fun of your view because I find it silly. Please continue to think how you please; it's quite upto you. I think perhaps my disagreements of your views are tinged in annoyance. I must admit I would prefer it if my comments weren't based on that. I don't want to be annoyed by you.

Culturalism! That's a bit general and predjudiced towards people that don't share your culture. Thus, there's a word that summarises your statements.

Some people do what they wanna do, some people do what they think they are supposed to. Which catergory do you think you fit into... Squawk! Spacemunkee wanna cracker?

I think you're a bit confused. You seem to think there are some rules to riding. Just because the word 'trials' is involved in something doesn't mean it has to be a certain way. In fact, I'm not sure I even saw the word 'trials' used. I personally pick up my bike and do what I want with it (or try to). I don't need the label my bike is given to decide the way I ride. Perhaps you need to be guided by the word trials? Kind of a crutch for something else missing? I really enjoyed the vid. Sweet editing and riding. Good job chaps I'd really like to check out that skatepark. What towns or cities is romsey near?

I'm afraid this is not so; at least not entirely. I refer to my g/f using the word paki in a jokingly way. She also calls me a 'honky'. Perhaps though, the intention is passive-aggresive and we're not aware of it

My point was that his intention was not racist; at least as far as I could tell. I think they were actually complaining about his usage or the word nigger. My bad if I've got the situation wrong. I try not to have emotional issue with any of the words that people use. I think it's possible to realise that you have a choice to ignore the emotional connotation of a word. By doing so you make a derogatory word impotent; if used in with a derogatory intention. If we all continue to get emotionally excited by such a word it maintains its derogatory function. If you want to go 'against' racism then ignore the words it uses. At least in the emotional sense. Not getting your knickers in a twist doesn't mean you are racist or don't care about racism.

Yeh apologies for contributing to the threads divergence.

What do people think if the word nigger is used with a non-racist intention? Does the intention mean anything or is the word, in your opinions, 'bad' by itself? If I found the word 'santa' offensive would you all stop saying it? Even better, if I found the word 'chav' offensive, would you all stop saying it? Those who abhore the usage of the word nigger, do you use similar 'derogatory' terms to describe other kinds of humans; class, gender, sexuality etc. Do you swear? Other people possibly find swear words just as offensive.

Nigger. The word only one part of what the word means... sometimes. Anyone else find it ironic that the people who don't like swear words are the ones that empower them by reacting to them in the offended way that they do? If people didn't react to the word nigger it would lose its power. A word is a word in that sense. It becomes something more; a word and an emotional cue when you allow it to.

Don't you just love to hate

Cheers

x-ups that pass 180 degrees according Mr Derf.

I signed up my support

Really good stuff. Editing was cool in parts. Riding was really good. Some big stuff going down. My only complaint is that sometimes you didn't show the entire legnth of a move; everything sort of flashed from one thing to the next. It was a bit confusing. I think you were sacrificing it for the editing but, in this instance, it didn't do it for me. Furry muff though, I've done it endless times in my own vids. I really like the fisheye shot where you hopped off the bus shelter down to the bin, where the camera was filming from behind you.

Yep, you've mostly got it as far as I can tell. What I think that you are missing though is that we don't HAVE to develop a sense of ownership. We can be aware of the nature of things before our intellect makes additions to and potentially distorts our view of the world. If I have kids I will choose to make them aware that the law is something you can choose to follow or not. The 'law' might not be 'good' for YOU. Drug laws don't make sense to me. I break them every week. I risk imprisonment. I used to feel guilty to the point where it made me depressed, especially the day after using a chemical. My 'apparant' knowledge that i'm expressing here helps me better understand what laws are and removes that guilt. Guilt is another conditioned response. I'm really not up for guilt about anything. Easier said then done. As a summary of everything I have said, the point is you may not be making the choices of thought, feeling or sensation that you think you are. You may just be repeating somebody or something else. An actor of societies movie script. I'm just saying think about becoming the actor of your own movie script. Might make you happier. Heh, furry muff. It doesn't mean that though. You can still 'respect' somebody elses desire to have an item as 'theirs'. It's just about understanding that they don't really own it. I think that but I don't take things from people on that basis. I can see how the misunderstanding of what I'm trying to communicate can lead to that though.

I really like your arguement. I think you make some good points, although I still disagree Regarding if someone were to take the bike I use (note the careful use of language ) then yes I would definitely try and stop them. I don't think this amounts to ownership though. What it amounts to is my desire to have the bike close to me; i never really 'own' it. I think describing things in regards to their locational relationship represents situations more 'objectively'. If we all understood, more accurately, what our situations were composed of, we might act towards them differently. I think then we would have a better chance of individual happiness but perhaps there's also a chance of carelessness towards others. I think it's a risk worth taking. Anyway, what happens to this description I have made of the locational relationship between things is that society places ideas on top of them (although they never leave our heads). In this sense we do seemingly have ownership, but really it's only ever pseudo ownership regarding 'objectivity'. We can say this is a signing up (consciously or not) to a social contract; guiding ideas relative to environmental cues. It's a mass following of ideas that makes those ideas seem extra real, almost as if they exist seperately to us because they permeate everyone's mind. You usually don't question or realise that which is there all the time. How often do you think about breathing? When people are unaware of what these ideas really amount to, they are more likely to be controlled by them and not have them as a choice as they ultimately are. The laws and ideas of society can make the individual unhappy if they contradict his or her individuality as seperate from socially developed thought. Basically society can decide the limits and types of thought that occur in an individual. Imagine that perhaps the majority extent of you feeling so bad about that relationship that didn't work out or the death of someone you loved is possibly, to a large degree based on the fact society has implicitly or explicitly told you to react that way. Or maybe the entirity of the way you approach your relationship with people, is based upon societies programming. People don't like these ideas; who's gonna get angry next? So imagine that we are all repeating a behaviour relative to some cue in our environment. Like the dog that puts up his paw to get that doggy biscuit. We are all playing GAME RULES! Each society with it's own game of chess that has different rules that we play by. I see it as robotry. This is what I'm trying to highlight and it's something which I think we all suffer from. Situation-A leads to Behaviour-B. Situation-C leads to Behaviour-E. Imagine if your life consists of acting to each situation relative to the social norms. I guess it's not so bad in at least the sense that most of us aren't aware that we're doing it. The choice seems free even though perhaps it's not. But do those choices make us happy? I know I have repeated myself, but I'm hoping I've put it in easier to understood terms. I'm really trying to emphasise my point because I think some people are missing it. Back to your post though and I'm at no point denying society as a whole, just perhaps certain aspects of it (subjectively). I don't agree that just because it's what has gone before is a reason to not consider a change from it now. That's conservatism and if we did that we wouldn't progress. It is the thought that escapes from the traditional line that potentially improves our 'objective' understanding of things or even our happiness. Science wouldn't work if our thoughts didn't leave the norm. The paradigm shift of relativity required a whole new set of rules and thinking, as did quantum theory. No condition of society is ever 'right' or 'wrong'. It is whatever it is. We have the choice to direct it how we choose. My opinion is that society doesn't need the amount of laws that it does have but perhaps it does? Perhaps this condition leaves most people happy. It doesn't do it for me. There have been cases of societies based on forms of anarchism (somtimes governless or de-centralised governmental 'states') that have operated with very little or no law. In spain at some point in the 20th century anarchism was the political discourse. It seemed to work very effectively and it is said that the production of buisness and other activity improved under the conditions. There are other cases of anarchism or similar political condition whereby it has worked and the people are claimed to have been very happpy under it. Funnily enough, it's usually collapsed because of external interference from other countries that are governed by a minority. "If nobody wants war, why does it keep happening?" - perhaps because we're all asleep under the concepts that support a minorities decision, that would otherwise go against our wishes? You talk of making things 'fair' but remember that this is again a constructed idea. 'fair' and 'justice' mean a different thing from society to society. It's somewhat of an imposition onto the environment. The 'law'makers have decided that this situation is fair and you must adopt it. We often do, just at a young age, through the use of emotional conditioning or at a time where we lack the critical abilities to aruge against it. This doesn't mean you can't choose you idea of fair and all agree to it. That's upto you as far as I'm concerned. Again, I'm just making an observation not telling anyone what to do. Almost everyone in my environment seems to want to get on with their own thing. They don't really want to hurt anyone or cause harm as far as I can tell. Do they need laws to tell them what to do regarding our worries of being 'screwed' over? Perhaps I'm overly optimistic here. I think that we're likely to always have people who threaten our physical security but I'm not sure that laws even stop those individuals. What do you think of the people around you, if perhaps you forget the sensationalism of the news media. I'll repeat one last time, I'm not going completely against society, just observing and questioning a part of it relative to what I 'think' I understand. I accept I may be totally confused here . I like society, I just believe in a balance between society and the individual. The ability to think beside it. I think, ultimately, we would all be happier in this sense. Although I also accept I may be wrong. Model agnosticism (agnosticism of knowledge rather than just religion) is the principle that conditions/mediates my thoughts. Additionally, I think everyone should choose what they want. It's all upto you My reply feels sketchy; I hope I have answered, to some degree, your arguement Davey. Apologies for any incoherence and if I have hijacked this thread. I just really enjoy this sort of discussion.

Who's that?!

Rules are rules? That's a circluar arguement which I don't go for. It was supposed to address what people said regarding what should happen to the 'illegal' man who 'faked' his passport. It has moved on from there somewhat because the discussion developed. Do my words make some of you angry?

Really good pics. Good job

I've found out what clicks are. Perhaps you think I shouldn't try anything until I can already do it?

I think I understand I think you could be right but maybe not? I would say that it depends on exactly what is going on; the other processes of a society that are operating at the time we changed our usage or morals and laws, etc. What I'd say is imagine a society where they taught morals or guiding principles but at the same time they also taught you what principles and morals actually represented. That they are constructed concepts/ideas existing only in your mind. Additionally, that concepts are fixed and general and they don't neccesarily make sense to every situation because the world, at least to me, appears to be ever changing; each moment is never the same as the next. The concept that made sense last year may not make sense this year regarding its differences. When somebody says "this person should be deported, they are 'illegal'", they miss out the actuality of that person. Who is this person? What is their life? It is easy to make quick judgements about people when all they are to you is a concept. Especially if that concept has negative connotations to you; consider racism. If we are locked into viewing the world through ideas or concepts we can become blinded or distorted by them and mis-judge situations. If, however, you dispose of or are cautious of your concepts, you may be able to view a situation how it actually is, with its uniqueness. In doing so you might find that you react to it in a choice that is your own instead of areacting to it on a reflex regarding how you have generalised it with your concept. You can still consider morals or principals but you have an alternative view as well. This can be quite frightening though and I think that perhaps people are scared of this. Consequences we don't like don't seem to bad when we can say, consciously or not that society says it was the right thing to do. So perhaps morals and our misunderstanding of them is a good thing in that we miss out on some fear but it can defintiely work on the converse. The old lady that sees me walking down the street towards her and gets scared and crosses over the road has most likely done so because she steretyped me. Perhaps because I am young, I have a beard (the main cause I suspet), I wear a hoodie, etc. she has generalised me and is percieving me as a threat that is consequently scaring her. Maybe she was hypnotised by the tv. If you watch the news each day you get the impression that the world is falling to pieces and maybe you develop an idea that distorts your experience of the world. When I walk around I think that 99.99% of people don't want to hurt me. I think this beacuse 99.99% of my time I've never been hurt by all the people ive come close to, walked past etc. Maybe I've been hypnotised by some unknown source though? A really good way of thinking of concepts is the quote, "the map is not the territory". It's from a discipline called general semantics. It basically states that our perception and all of our ideas are just maps and they aren't the thing they represent; they just help guide us around the thing they represent. This can help you seperate your concepts from your most basic and material perception of the world. Basically consider your map as something which is useful in certain ways at certain times but not always. So then if you are in a new place you might need a new map (new concepts). Or perhaps something changes in the place you were already at then your map might need updating. Either way, you need to stop looking at the world through your current concepts and view the world without concepts so that you can register what its actual condition is. Your concepts are only ever guides, they never tell you anything exact about the world, they just help tell you about things that might be; that seem likely. Realise the limitations of your concepts and you probably won't rely on them quite so much and in turn you might gain some additional freedom. Perhaps though people don't want freedom in this sense. So then perhaps if we dropped all guiding principles and stopped communicating with one another then we might well fall into anarchy but if instead we understood what are guiding principles do and their limitations, we might use them differently and allow ourselves to think alongside them. Thus we have a suggestion and a choice. If we do not know about the nature of guiding principles we might think that we 'should' react to them in this arbirary way that we have arrived at from the peculiar development we experienced. Most likely as a child when we were most vulnerable to suggestion. Just remember, the most constant thing is change. The most constant thing about concepts is that they change. The models of science are just the same. Change is usually an updating; perhaps the making of a more accurate map regarding our external or internal environemt. It's much more difficult to update your map if you're not aware you are using a map and perhaps you think your map is THE map. "Why do I need air when I've got water?" - Probably not as extreme but maybe your map is like that and maybe society made it that way. I hope I've answered your question somewhat and not gone off on a tangent. I wasn't supposed to write this much. I'm supposed to be doing a maths assignment that I've left to the last minute Ben.

I don't understand what you mean?