The Haiti Disaster

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 06:59 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;122276 wrote:
Agreed it is not selfish because it is a action of inactioning or an inactioning of action.
It holds no reason because it is same backwards as frontwards, it cancels itself out it has no reason and does not need to be explained.
It is just for the is of it.
No debating it.
Neither selfish or selfless.
But not all actions are that separable from inactioning, an action of actioning could possibly be as much selfish for its ends as for selfless endings.
You did not have action over whether you were tired or not it was an inaction for actions sake just as much an action for inactions sake.
Inactioning for of inactioning is non existent.


Why is it an inaction? Suppose I just lie down to take a nap. Is that an inaction?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:01 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;122282 wrote:
Why is it an inaction? Suppose I just lie down to take a nap. Is that an inaction?

Sorry about the break i needed to sleep, so slept, because sleep needed me inaction actioning, action inactioning.
I had a nap but didn't need it and was selfish action actioning over the body.
Body before or as self is inaction only if actioned. Whilst you are alive
It is an inaction because it is body self over self self, self because of body.
Self is action?
Body is inaction?
Body for body cannot be self
Self for self cannot be body.
It is when we think self can be more than the body or the body more than the self we meet our undoing. Selfish and selfless get over used and we end up abusing the self or the body.
There is no such thing but perhaps death that is solo inaction, all inactions are actions if you are alive, just as all actions are inactions when dealing only with the body and the need precedes the choice of self.
We think we can put choice and self above the needed solvancy of the body and inaction action, action inaction.
Self over body as self self is action action and may not really exist. But to make them we use selfish and selfless.
WE think just because we think we can become self self action action that this is what dictates the entire body of inaction action.
Body an explanation requirement unto its self, inaction action, action inaction. Eventuually inaction inaction.
Self an explanation requirement unto its body,
Over self is where selfish and selfless come in and give us avenuse for describing action actionings more solidly.
still undecided if self can be an explanation requirement unto itself???
It leaves me with the questions whether self self action action can indeed exist that does not solve the only equation we need to be and be solved because of just bein gour selfs and bodies,
we all to run perfectly should be +1-1=0 this is all that is really required of us,
but we have this need to continuously add to ourselves,
we believe we are more or less because we believe we are 1+1+1+1+........................-1-1-1-1-1-...................
this may be part of it but all we really need it +1-1=0 Selfless+1 or -1 only if the other is the opposite, selfish +1 or -1 only what the other is opposite. WE all end up as zero, it may be a delusion and possible misuse of the + - scale that we think we can be mor eor less than zero is where the self rules over the body or the body rules over the self.


You got the really really short version and i am still not sure of my findings.
Mainly because i keep finding more with this.
Let me know if any of this made sense.......................yet.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:03 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;122597 wrote:
Sorry about the break i needed to sleep, so slept, because sleep needed me inaction actioning, action inactioning.
I had a nap but didn't need it and was selfish action actioning over the body.
Body before or as self is inaction only if actioned. Whilst you are alive
It is an inaction because it is body self over self self, self because of body.
Self is action?
Body is inaction?
Body for body cannot be self
Self for self cannot be body.
It is when we think self can be more than the body or the body more than the self we meet our undoing. Selfish and selfless get over used and we end up abusing the self or the body.
There is no such thing but perhaps death that is solo inaction, all inactions are actions if you are alive, just as all actions are inactions when dealing only with the body and the need precedes the choice of self.
We think we can put choice and self above the needed solvancy of the body and inaction action, action inaction.
Self over body as self self is action action and may not really exist. But to make them we use selfish and selfless.
WE think just because we think we can become self self action action that this is what dictates the entire body of inaction action.
Body an explanation requirement unto its self, inaction action, action inaction. Eventuually inaction inaction.
Self an explanation requirement unto its body,
Over self is where selfish and selfless come in and give us avenuse for describing action actionings more solidly.
still undecided if self can be an explanation requirement unto itself???
It leaves me with the questions whether self self action action can indeed exist that does not solve the only equation we need to be and be solved because of just bein gour selfs and bodies, we all to run perfectly should be +1-1=0 this is all that is really required of us, but we have this need to continuously add to ourselves, we believe we are more because we believe we are 1+1+1+1+........................-1-1-1-1-1-...................this may be part of it but all we really need it +1-!=0 Selfless+1 or -1 only if the other is the opposite, selfish +1 or -1 only what the other is opposite. WE all end up as zero, it may be a delusion and possible misuse of the = - scale that we think we can be mor eor less than zero is where the self rules over the body or the body rules over the self.


You got the really really short version and i am still not sure of my findings.
Mainly because i keep finding more with this.
Let me know if any of this made sense.......................yet.


Not much..................
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:09 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;122598 wrote:
Not much..................

Read it again, slowly.
And if you want more indicate and i shall come back with something else, after my inaction actioning body gets what i can hear it needs, sleep..................
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:39 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;122601 wrote:
Read it again, slowly.
And if you want more indicate and i shall come back with something else, after my inaction actioning body gets what i can hear it needs, sleep..................

You think that snoring is "inaction" too? How about just breathing softly?
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 11:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;122178 wrote:
Notorious!!!? I thought you said it was all the fault of European colonization. Apparently it is not. So the fault is what? That Haiti is small? That it has little tourism? (Whose fault is that?) Or that it isn't India or the USA? Exactly what are you saying? Except that everything is the fault of Europeans and Texans? It is ever the fault of others, and never one's own fault. I suppose that's the infallible truth. Typical liberalism in action. The earthquake fault was not that of people of Haiti. But after 210 years of independence, that they and their government were helpless in dealing with it, that's another issue. You think it is the fault of colonization, although Haiti has been independent (and not a colony) for 210 years. Doesn't that sound implausible; even to you?

And, speaking of predictability, do you ever use an argument that is not an abusive ad hominem?
Handing out blame is useless. If a murderer murders, is it his fault, or that of his parents, or that of his school, or that of his life, or that of...

Its the fault of all of those. And then everyone is to blame, nobody is to blame.

But, off course, the responsability must befall someone. In this case I suggest the responsability must fall upon the murderer. If the murderer was a kid, I would have it befall its parents. It really depends of the situation. I dont know where to put it in a case like Haiti's.

sometime sun;122237 wrote:
True Peace transcends time you have caught and catch something that you could not be without and even forget to wonder what it was you missed before you had it. You just have it and all else is forgotten.
Planetary peace i suspect is something quite different from True peace.
When it comes to humans being i often wonder if True peace is possible in life and no tonly in death. But hey at least we are pretending to do something abou something.
Time is the vehicle of the mind, peace cannot exist without it, therefore it cannot transcend it.

sometime sun;122237 wrote:

People ar enicer in these times because they wake up to the fact it could happen to them and would want also to be compensated when it will happen to them.
Indeed, but, ideally, they shouldnt need awakening, but realize a disaster is merely an more visible form of something that exists all the time, and that is, tragedy.

sometime sun;122237 wrote:

They care sure but it is selfish, is there any such thing as a selfless act that is not born of some form of selfishness?
No, but we can measure it anyway.

sometime sun;122237 wrote:

The fish will all be gone soon, nothing left to teach.
All there will be left is beggars in street with no-one to give to them not because we will be without carity but becaus ethere will nothing to spare.
If the end comes, what can we do, other than dying? =)

sometime sun;122237 wrote:

They were easily dismissed befor ethe disaster because they were not us.
Disaster reminds us all that we are the same and that this is happening to all of us.
True, but, like I said above, we shouldnt need awakening. Im also suspicious of the intentions of governments because they are powerful organized bodies whom are probally "awake" for things like this all the time, and thus they cant have started helping now out of only now realizing Haiti is in a bad shape. If there is one thing I learned in history classes, is that governments arent ever "nice".

kennethamy;122249 wrote:
I went to sleep last night because I was very sleepy. Was that selfish of me? I don't think so. Everyone else was already asleep.
Depends of the point of view, yes is a possible answer. From the said point of view, ever conscient action is the result of one's desires, therefore ever conscient action is selfish.

Sacrifying yourself for someone else is selfish because you are merely accomplishing your desire of protecting someone at any cost.

sometime sun;122276 wrote:
Agreed it is not selfish because it is a action of inactioning or an inactioning of action.
It holds no reason because it is same backwards as frontwards, it cancels itself out it has no reason and does not need to be explained.
It is just for the is of it.
No debating it.
Neither selfish or selfless.
But not all actions are that separable from inactioning, an action of actioning could possibly be as much selfish for its ends as for selfless endings.
You did not have action over whether you were tired or not it was an inaction for actions sake just as much an action for inactions sake.
Inactioning for of inactioning is non existent.
Dont overcomplicate it =)
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 12:50 pm
@Alan McDougall,
Wonder if there is a link between our selfish conduct and the situation Haiti is in.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 12:59 pm
@manored,
manored;122750 wrote:

. From the said point of view, ever conscient action is the result of one's desires, therefore ever conscient action is selfish.

)


Because I was tired and wanted to go to sleep last night, and what I did affected no other person, what I did was selfish? You had better look up the word, "selfish". You do not know what it means.

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 02:01 PM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;122759 wrote:
Wonder if there is a link between our selfish conduct and the situation Haiti is in.


What selfish conduct was that? And who is "our"?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 01:30 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;122618 wrote:
You think that snoring is "inaction" too? How about just breathing softly?

Quick reply;
If in sleep, in inaction actioning, action inactioning, yes snoring and light breath is inaction for actions sake action for inactions sake.
The inaction part is 'no choice', it is design, or mor esurly put it is the building that is the design or the design that is the building.
Inactionin gina ny part no matter how small or large but never alone is Not Voluntary.
You dont choose if you snore, so yes it is an inactioning action.
Now it is the over actioning or action actioning of the design and the body building that may change this body and create a new design new set of involuntaries and a new set of inaction actionings.
Shows that the self does infact have dominion over the body, but we tend to forget that the reason we are snoring is the bodies new set of rules involuntaries it has had to make for its new situation, its new imposed body because of the self impossition.
But i doubt you are trying to make this point. Shrug.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 01:51 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;122769 wrote:
Quick reply;
If in sleep, in inaction actioning, action inactioning, yes snoring and light breath is inaction for actions sake action for inactions sake.
The inaction part is 'no choice', it is design, or mor esurly put it is the building that is the design or the design that is the building.
Inactionin gina ny part no matter how small or large but never alone is Not Voluntary.
You dont choose if you snore, so yes it is an inactioning action.
Now it is the over actioning or action actioning of the design and the body building that may change this body and create a new design new set of involuntaries and a new set of inaction actionings.
Shows that the self does infact have dominion over the body, but we tend to forget that the reason we are snoring is the bodies new set of rules involuntaries it has had to make for its new situation, its new imposed body because of the self impossition.
But i doubt you are trying to make this point. Shrug.


No. I am just trying to find out what you mean by "inaction". And all those other words you use, like "actionings", and an "inaction action", and "over actioning" I have never heard of, and I doubt are in the dictionary, so I cannot find out (except from you). What do they mean?
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 02:04 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;122772 wrote:
No. I am just trying to find out what you mean by "inaction". And all those other words you use, like "actionings", and an "inaction action", and "over actioning" I have never heard of, and I doubt are in the dictionary, so I cannot find out (except from you). What do they mean?

And you help me define them, thanks for that, but what do you read into or get out of them? i would be as interested in,
as what i am trying even with an ill equiped vocab to find is not always what i can show with a good one.
I was not flipping you off with my shrug, maybe just myself

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 08:09 PM ----------

Ask me another question, i like it when you do.
It is hard to make things known asking only the self what the self already thinks it knows.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 02:17 pm
@kennethamy,
I just read an article indicating selfish behouviour increases if you reward it with a bonus. With -our- I meant people in general. I should only speak for myself.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 03:30 pm
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;122776 wrote:
And you help me define them, thanks for that, but what do you read into or get out of them? i would be as interested in,
as what i am trying even with an ill equiped vocab to find is not always what i can show with a good one.
I was not flipping you off with my shrug, maybe just myself

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 08:09 PM ----------

Ask me another question, i like it when you do.
It is hard to make things known asking only the self what the self already thinks it knows.


I cannot help you define them. I don't have any idea what you think they mean. After all, you invented them.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 05:29 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;122772 wrote:
No. I am just trying to find out what you mean by "inaction". And all those other words you use, like "actionings", and an "inaction action", and "over actioning" I have never heard of, and I doubt are in the dictionary, so I cannot find out (except from you). What do they mean?

inaction= body + body, inactioning= body + body = self.
action= self + self, actioning= self + self = body.
inaction actioning=body + body self + self = body that is equal self
action inactioning= self + self body + body= self that is equal body
In complete acceptance.
action actioning= self + self self + self= body that is all self.
the self cannot survive with out the body, the body cannot survive wihtout the self, however the body can become more self and things can then go wrong because they are not of equal to the body, things such as selfish and selfless come intot the equation when dealing in predominant self. ANd the equation is much the same, how our self must be actioned i use the model of slefish and selfless. But inaction the body for body or cancelled out with equal self is never selfish or selfless which is why it is inaction, it has no cause upon anyhting else but its own body and self.
This may help it may not, thanks for listening.
Still ironing it out

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 11:36 PM ----------

kennethamy;122813 wrote:
I cannot help you define them. I don't have any idea what you think they mean. After all, you invented them.

You do help just by asking a question, doesn't matter what the question is all the time. It is often the interest that keeps one interested.

---------- Post added 01-26-2010 at 11:44 PM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;122779 wrote:
I just read an article indicating selfish behouviour increases if you reward it with a bonus. With -our- I meant people in general. I should only speak for myself.

Of course because the body and the self comes to believe that the selfish is the selfless, and that all it needs to run itself is the selfish because there is a reward there is an addition to one of the two, especially an addition to the body, rather than a subtraction or a disolving dissoluble to both body and self at the same time. How the body runs the self is supposed to be -1+1=0
How the self runs the body should only be (if at all) +1 +selfless.?
 
Khethil
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 09:18 am
@Alan McDougall,
Good discussion. I am; however, a bit disappointed to not see the usual claim that the whole event was a Government Conspiracy.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 10:26 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;122883 wrote:


Of course because the body and the self comes to believe that the selfish is the selfless, and that all it needs to run itself is the selfish because there is a reward there is an addition to one of the two, especially an addition to the body, rather than a subtraction or a disolving dissoluble to both body and self at the same time. How the body runs the self is supposed to be -1+1=0
How the self runs the body should only be (if at all) +1 +selfless.?


I still do not understand why going to bed when tired, without affecting any other person, would be selfish behavior.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 11:06 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;123015 wrote:
Good discussion. I am; however, a bit disappointed to not see the usual claim that the whole event was a Government Conspiracy.


That's because the coverup is working.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 11:41 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;123031 wrote:
That's because the coverup is working.


Cover-ups always work, since even when they appear not to work, that is also a cover-up; one even more sinister than the one that appeared not to work. That's part of the whole cover-up. For example, when AMDs were not discovered in Iraq, that was only a part of the cover-up. It is important to know that great cover-ups cover up what is being covered up, so that even the participants in the cover-up are confused.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 03:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;123036 wrote:
Cover-ups always work, since even when they appear not to work, that is also a cover-up; one even more sinister than the one that appeared not to work. That's part of the whole cover-up. For example, when AMDs were not discovered in Iraq, that was only a part of the cover-up. It is important to know that great cover-ups cover up what is being covered up, so that even the participants in the cover-up are confused.


"The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working."
 
Deckard
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 03:09 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil;123015 wrote:
Good discussion. I am; however, a bit disappointed to not see the usual claim that the whole event was a Government Conspiracy.


Obviously, the Haiti earthquakes were the result of the use of H.A.R.P. technology by the international shadow government. (There, Khethil, happy now?)
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/29/2024 at 09:16:21