The community based on the iPersonic personality test.

Little thoughts

There is a group 'Women only' (no guys please) here. Group is discussing for example equality of women. I have a little thought. Isn't this group has a sexism base? It like I have written 'no woman (no black, no white, no gays, no straight etc.)' and going to say about equality. I think it will be funny... no? If I'm not right please explain me where I made a mistake. I want to know your point of view.
I will thankful for all who reply.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 24, 2009 at 5:23am: You are the second person who talk me about Utopia. Yes I think I like Utopia if you mean ‘Utopia’ like peace, reason, personal development without any violence for everyone ;-))
But if you please forgive my utopian moronity …;-)) I would to say that you don’t answer my question. Yes. My question was: ‘How it will be solving our problems the same way as we made them’? You say that some people have psychological problems. In fact I know that. But this is not the answer – this is only describing of usual practice and you know that practice only weak cure. People have injuries from others because of dividing on gender, race, religion or another base. Isn’t separating a cure?
Another way for instance: one person was emotionally injured by another (very bad) person. Tell me why the first one would generalize the second one on the gender or race base? Is that necessary or may be clever? I know if I allow for myself that sort of generalization I will show myself like stupid. You said there could be some place which one I will avoid as a place where bad people crowd. But it means if we talk about ‘places’ so we talk about dividing and separation again. Bad circle in logic, no?
And if someone runs from consequences of dividing why s/he runs into new dividing? An action of separating is consequence of previous dividing and cause of next problems in advance.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Crystal on April 24, 2009 at 6:26am: I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time with the broken english. I'm guessing at what you're trying to say. I'll do my best to try to answer.
As far as an abused person generalizing, it is hard to explain to a person that has never been abused. It would be easier for you to understand by reading some psychology books on abused victims. People do not always react consciously to situations, they react subconsciously many times.
Higher education is the best way to fix problems in all areas.
Utopia was the title of a book by Sir Thomas More written in 1516 about a seemingly perfect island. It is a good book, I think you would like it. There was another point to the book, basically that utopia is non existent. Regardless of how much we strive for Utopia, it is impossible. To achieve utopia, we would have to be rid of anyone that was against it. Either by killing them or by segregating them(more division). Everyone's idea of perfection is different. Also when perfection is striven for as a society, freedoms are lost. Here is a good movie that I think you would enjoy: Equilibrium with Christian Bale. With no diversity, everyone becomes the same. Our differences/divisions are a huge part of what makes life so beautiful and interesting. To me, life would not be exciting/thrilling if we were all the same.
"why fit in, if you were born to stand out"; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 25, 2009 at 10:49am: Yes I know and I’m so sorry for my broken English. I’m really sorry about it. But that is not a point, yes?
I think all people have abuse in their life. Social life sometime abused. And we talk now about reason and prevention of abusing.
Don’t you mind if we take this situation as an example? You said that my English was broken. Then I’m going out and create a group ‘Broken English only (no clear English please)’. Is there a reason there? If I stay in group I never could improve my English. But I can’t come out to common place with my broken English. So there are two points of attention. You make an separation (clear/broken) and I confirm this separation by my grouping (broken/clear). If I prefer wrong way of separation in the same conditions (as environment) I will confirm this separation for you benefits.
The same thing is at the logical explanation. For example some ‘A’ abused some ‘B’ on the ground of ‘Z’ (‘Z’ is good, ‘-Z’ is bad). ‘B’ comes out and makes group of people abused on the ground of ‘Z’ but back to front. Those people prefer values ‘–Z’ in their group and say “Our group is for ‘–Z’ only (please no any ‘Z’)”. In fact they take this distinguish (‘Z’/’-Z’) and support it by their actions. Don’t you see this is the same system and the same mechanic?
I say we can’t overcome our problems on that way. Separation and dividing is mechanic of abusing and pushing aside.
And my question exclusively for you (and Christian Bale?): how we could talk about diversity if we come in group and take group rules as means of community (obviously common is not various)? We can’t be various in a group because existing of a group supposes no diversity in it.
Well now is your step. ;-)); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Patrice on April 25, 2009 at 10:57am: Watch the film Equilibrium, Vitaly... it's great!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 25, 2009 at 12:10pm: I watched it. I’m really sorry but I find out some too big and too artificial assumptions which based on philosophycal concepts of XVII-XVIII ages. It might be this film good as a movie and an ideological product but not good for me as a philosophical thing. Oh, there is my silly opinion of course ;-)). Old liberal concepts and humanists’ theory of emotions are not my favorite things. I would rather see François Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451 or even better The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy :-)); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Crystal on April 27, 2009 at 2:23am: It sounds like you are not open to reason. You have made up your opinions and you are just looking for people to agree with you. Good luck with your endeavors.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 27, 2009 at 3:19am: Do you think it looks like me not open to reason? ;-)) Oh... I supposed I was talking only about reason. I had taken maximum efforts to be logical. And I thankful to you for your opinion. Now I know it and it is not convincing to me. Well it only means we have different opinions and nothing more. Have a good day.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Crystal on April 27, 2009 at 5:54am: I apologize if you were, I may just be having that hard of a time deciphering everything. I will take the time to look everything over more carefully. I may have to go over sentence by sentence asking you to explain what you're trying to say in a little more detail if you don't mind. I will probably be gone for a few days but I will be back if you are interested in furthering the discussion.

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 27, 2009 at 6:12am: To Crystal
OK. I will look forward your returning. I’m interested in gender equality subject and I’m curious on your way of discourse. Of course I’m interested not only in gender equality subject but in discussing on human’s rights and conditions in whole. So let's continue our conversation.
Have a good voyage.

Permalink Reply by forensiclove on May 15, 2009 at 7:50pm: I agree f you were more open minded to reason you may have found the comments and the video
ka; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on May 16, 2009 at 7:57am: I'm not sure exactly what video you mentioned and what comments? About what?

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 24, 2009 at 3:09pm: Would you please explane me what is '"subtle agression" approach'? What did you mean?; ▶ Reply to This