An Embarrassment of Riches

Discuss Taijiquan or other soft styles. Theory, practice and applications. Please stay on topic.

Moderators: nyang, Dvivid, Inga, taiqiman

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby brer_momonga » Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:44 am

** double post *** oops
brer_momonga
Forum Specialist
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby Greg Jah » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:47 pm

Hi everyone,

The recent flaming that erupted on this topic reminded me of this song by Milarepa:

Fierce tigers in the South,
And wild yaks in the North
Can be tamed if one tries;
But pride and egotism are hard to tame.
Rechungpa, try to subdue conceit within!

Pete5770 makes a valid point that as long as people are egostical, have distorted thinking, and have conflicting emotions, then they will create suffering for themselves and others. It is not, however, the responsibility of others to accept their insults or antagonism just because they are a member of the same community. All communities have standards governing behavior. Using a temple as an example, even though it is accepted that individuals are there to work on their own ignorance, greed, and anger (the three poisons), if a monk goes around vomiting insults and opinions and antagonizing others, they will be asked to leave. So to in a forum (especially one devoted to the martial arts) individuals must accept that just because they can be insulting and rude does not mean that they should - and if they choose to do so then they will be asked to leave.

As to the original post by Monsoon, this is an area that I have struggled with for much of my life. Especially when I was younger, I would often start things with great enthusiasm but have a hard time finishing because my interest and energy started pulling me elsewhere. Right now I have pared my martial arts training down to three days a week of boxing/ FMA, and two days a week of concentrated Tai Chi practice (currently working on learning the Yang 108). I try to do 15 - 20 minutes of Qigong & Tai Chi practice each morning. I also try to do 20 - 30 minutes of meditation each day.

For me, the importance of a good instructor and good training partners cannot be overstated. I find that when I have both then my training is much more focused, and I get deeper into the art, than when I am left to my own devices.

Best,

Greg
Greg Jah
Forum Contributor
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:01 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby Monsoon » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:57 pm

Yeah, I find that as well. Although I have been instructed by... well, instructors, I am currently studying and practicing in near isolation and motivation and discipline seem harder to come by in this condition.

Basically it takes me more effort to really knuckle down to the work when there isn't a Master or community around me. Sometimes the isolation is nice, but not when it's all the time.

Just to retouch on what Pete just posted. Pete, you can talk about people breaking the rules when they please in all sorts of environments. Nobody is abusing you of your right to ignore the rules, but you will have to accept that if you do break the rules you cannot complain about the consequences.

And despite you saying this is a 'public' forum you are actually incorrect. While it is easy simply to sign up and start posting, this is done on acceptance of the rules (this is not open to question by the way). Disobey the rules and you may find yourself de-listed. If it was a public forum there would be no rules.

As an aside, and this is going to sound a little pejorative, I have personally come across a lot of Americans who believe that the right to free speech absolves them from the responsibility for what they say. In the UK we have free speech too, but there are consequences for people who abuse it.

But I digress.
peace and harmony

monsoon
Monsoon
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:10 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby John the Monkey mind » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:53 pm

Monsoon wrote:In the UK we have free speech too,


We really don't. There have been a few cases recently where people are awaiting trial for what they have said or have been bared from work or adoption or fostering due to relatively mild opinions.
I don't see that as free speech and I honestly expect that one day they will come for me. We are not a "free country" any-more and it will only get worse.

I don't have to agree with someone to see it as wrong to lock them up for what they have said. We are not even talking about incitement to violence but saying things against the prevailing political orthodoxy.

Still moderating what you say is also a good thing. Antagonising people to no end is pointless and reflects badly on the person doing the antagonising. However we must preserve freedom of speech and expression against all comers. Pete can say what he likes but as a private forum he can be moderated or bared. People can also think less of him for his words and attitudes.
John the Monkey mind
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:15 am

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby Monsoon » Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:01 pm

There have been a few cases recently where people are awaiting trial for what they have said or have been bared from work or adoption or fostering due to relatively mild opinions.


Could you give some links for this please? It's not that I don't believe you, rather it may be the case that there is a difference between what you think is acceptable and what the state thinks is acceptable. I would like to see for myself before going out on a limb one way or the other.


Also,

However we must preserve freedom of speech and expression against all comers.


... when such freedom also permits blatantly obvious hate speech (Westboro Baptists spring to mind) then I think there is every justification for some kind of check and balance. Total freedom to say what you want, how you want and to whom you want is not in the best interest of our current society. In an enlightened society it would work fine because people would be responsible for what they say. In our times the prevailing reasoning is that it always the other guys fault.

Freedom of speech WITHOUT the burden of responsibility is the path of cowardice.

This is not really the thread to discuss this.
peace and harmony

monsoon
Monsoon
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:10 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby John the Monkey mind » Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:17 am

Monsoon wrote:
There have been a few cases recently where people are awaiting trial for what they have said or have been bared from work or adoption or fostering due to relatively mild opinions.


Could you give some links for this please? It's not that I don't believe you, rather it may be the case that there is a difference between what you think is acceptable and what the state thinks is acceptable. I would like to see for myself before going out on a limb one way or the other.


Also,

However we must preserve freedom of speech and expression against all comers.




... when such freedom also permits blatantly obvious hate speech (Westboro Baptists spring to mind) then I think there is every justification for some kind of check and balance. Total freedom to say what you want, how you want and to whom you want is not in the best interest of our current society. In an enlightened society it would work fine because people would be responsible for what they say. In our times the prevailing reasoning is that it always the other guys fault.

Freedom of speech WITHOUT the burden of responsibility is the path of cowardice.

This is not really the thread to discuss this.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... a-sin.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2496605.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... mance.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... -case.html

http://www.islamist.com/index.php/imper ... n-facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2K0mkUSHk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lling.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvand ... rushracist

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2K0mkUSHk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z2K0mkUSHk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rents.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -page.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... abuse.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... guest.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... rsity.html

Fined for saying woof to a dog??? Yes he was.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... peech.html

served with a summons under section five of the Public Order Act for saying scientology is a "cult".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3558 ... e-law.html

Arrested for not wanting to study with people who did not speak English
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... upils.html

The list goes on and you could add the now famous tram lady (she is an idiot but jail really????) I think there was a second near identical case shortly afterwords as well. Then there is Nick Griffin for talking about Asian rape gangs a few years back (we might not like the guy but it terns out he was telling the truth).

Judge condemns attacks on free speech.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... peech.html

Britain is the world's first modern totalitarian state.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 5700363959


There are a lot more examples out there. We may not like what they said but free speech is something you ether have or you don't.

Once you start attacking speech you don't like you have no freedom. Even if their opinion is unusual or unpleasant or against political consensus you still have to let them speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5cNWztXEGE
Last edited by John the Monkey mind on Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
John the Monkey mind
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:15 am

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby Monsoon » Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:46 am

Thanks!

Apart from the UKIP fostering one, I think all the others are examples of people being deliberately offensive.

You see, this is the problem with free speech. People think it absolves them of any responsibility at all.

Take the vicar, for example, he might well protest that his remark was conversational or not intended for a wider audience and so on, but the fact is that he is seen as a spiritual leader in a community and as such he needs to be damned careful about what he says. He is entitled to his own opinion, we all are, though he has to measure the likely magnification of credibility his position holds.

Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom to deliberately and willfully cause distress to others. All the examples given caused unnecessary distress. Should this go unremarked upon? I think not. Should there be punitive action? That is a whole other question.

Once you start attacking speech you don't like you have no freedom. Even if their opinion is unusual or unpleasant or against political consensus you still have to let them speak.


This isn't about speech that 'you don't like' it's about speech that is offensive in a targeted fashion. It also isn't about opinions that cut against the consensus. The majority of these cases are not examples of expressions of ideas but nothing more than mindless hate speech.

We are going to disagree on this I am sure, but that's part of the fun I guess, but let me ask you a question: Do you think it is excusable behaviour to turn up at a funeral service and barrack the mourners with taunts of 'Your son is gay, he deserves to die'?

As I said in the earlier post, freedom of expression is great as an ideal. When we have a mature society then maybe we will be able to handle it properly.
peace and harmony

monsoon
Monsoon
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:10 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby John the Monkey mind » Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:58 am

Monsoon wrote:
You see, this is the problem with free speech. People think it absolves them of any responsibility at all.


Free speech you either have it or you don't.


Take the vicar, for example,


The Gay Activists asked him what the bible said. They Asked him!! How was he being abusive by telling them?

Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom to deliberately and willfully cause distress to others. All the examples given caused unnecessary distress. Should this go unremarked upon? I think not. Should there be punitive action? That is a whole other question.


Really you do not believe in free speech. Who is to say the distress was unnecessary? And since when is it so wrong to offend others. Everything you do could be construed as offensive.

What if the truth is offensive? Think of all the girls in the North of England who would have gone without being gang raped if people had investigated what that fat head Griffin said rather than prosecuted him twice for talking about it. Now the police have investigated but only after years more of abuse and violence.

That is the problem about bursting into tears when people are offensive. I find your taking offence offensive lol are we five?

This isn't about speech that 'you don't like' it's about speech that is offensive in a targeted fashion. It also isn't about opinions that cut against the consensus. The majority of these cases are not examples of expressions of ideas but nothing more than mindless hate speech.


Who decides what is hate speech? Where do you draw the line? Is hate speech evenly enforced or just enforced against people you don't like? I could give you as many examples of "hate speech" that went unpunished.

"HATE" or at least anti "HATE" is more or less just a high profit industry for lawyers and so called charities. "HATE" has an ever expanding definition that allow people you don't like to be marginalised and activists to make insane amounts of money wile pushing their own brand of hate.
This lady says it much better than I could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W46iTOiFm1U

As I said in the earlier post, freedom of expression is great as an ideal. When we have a mature society then maybe we will be able to handle it properly.


So your saying we should have no free speech if it does not meet your definition of mature.

As I said you don't believe in free speech you believe in people being able to agree with you.

I don't agree with a lot or most of the examples I gave but they had every right to say it.
John the Monkey mind
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:15 am

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby Monsoon » Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:47 pm

I did say we would probably disagree on this :D

I am for free speech in concept, but I think there is a problem which I term the 'priority of rights'. This is when two apparent rights come in conflict with each other, which gets priority. In the case of free speech, as an example, if one person deliberately offends another which person's rights get upheld? The person offending or the person offended against?

This is not a trivial issue, and is firmly entrenched in the laws that protect the minority.

Perhaps we could make it simpler. You can have the freedom to be as deliberately offensive as you like to me, as long as the law gives me the freedom to punch you in the nose without charge. That sound fair?

What if the truth is offensive?


This is the kind of misdirection that is used a lot. We are not talking about offensive truths but about offensive statements that are not backed by truth nor a desire to find a truth. There is a big difference I think.

While I do agree with the sentiment of what you say, I also think that your perception of it is absolutist. My point about maturity in our societies still stands. Besides which, our societies are imperfect, our living together in close community is a situation filled with tension. We are unable to regulate our speech and actions WITHOUT laws and rules. What I have said is simply within this context.

BTW, as you didn't directly respond to the funeral question should I assume that you agree that this is personally acceptable. Shall I round up a few cronies and come and camp your next family funeral and shout offensive remarks while you and your family are struggling with the grieving process? Or should the authorities step in and say that this is unacceptable behaviour in our society?

Overall, this is a very difficult topic on which to reach any kind of consensus. There is such a rift between what is ideal and what is real. And generally people don't appreciate this until they have been on the wrong side of the issue.

Interesting discussion, though I don't think we will solve it here. :)
peace and harmony

monsoon
Monsoon
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:10 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby pete5770 » Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:28 pm

FWIW I'm thinking that all this is because I said something not normally heard on a Tai Chi forum or in a Tai Chi class. My stated disbelief of something that, in the Tai Chi world, is somewhat unthinkable, was pretty much just that, a stated disbelief. Guess I sort of figured that I would be pushed back when I said it. And then I pushed a little, got pushed back, pushed a little, got.....
In any case the outcome of it all is that no one has changed anyone's mind. Guess we must be pretty poor debaters.

I do like this freedom of speech thing though. I believe in for many reasons. The least of which is that having it is better than not having it. That some people, myself included, on occasion cross a hard to define line, is by no means, to me anyway, a reason to stop the voices. However, this forum
does have the right to put out there whatever the powers that be decide should be put out there.
Since they have these powers it is up to them to decide who stays and who goes. It's their game and we're just some players rolling the dice. Warnings to people about toeing the line? No problem with me. Banning people for being "nut cases"? Still no problem with me(even if I'm the nut case). The Mod's however sighed on to keep things civil and in line. That's their job and if someone needs to be gone(myself included) then so be it. Once again no problem with me. i know I get carried at times and at times most likely deserve to get my *ss beat. :wink: :wink:
pete5770
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:16 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby John the Monkey mind » Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:19 pm

Monsoon wrote:I did say we would probably disagree on this :D


I didn't think you would agree. In my view nobody has the right not to be offended. The funeral thing was offensive but so what. We all know the guys offending were jackasses.

We have the right to offend or to take offence nobody should have protection or you end up with the ridiculous "progressive" stack like some sort of game of top-trumps were you compare "privilege" lol to see who is at fault and that is really, really, really, really dumb.

Perhaps we could make it simpler. You can have the freedom to be as deliberately offensive as you like to me, as long as the law gives me the freedom to punch you in the nose without charge. That sound fair?


This is the trouble with liberals you equate hurt feelings with physical violence. It is really not the same. Are you five??
No one has the right to hit someone for being offensive that is assault and a real crime. The trouble is that in the UK some very stupid and frankly evil people mad a lot of terrible terrible hate speech legislation for their own despicable ends and ideology (If anyone in the USA wants to be really scared Halloween style look up Harriet Harman a creature I honestly feel is as evil as Hitler, Stalin or Mao just luckily not with the same power at least for now).

They also had the legal power in the USSR or Nazi Germany to lock you up for speech. It was wrong then and its equally as wrong now. It is bad and frankly immoral law I fully intend to ignore (not that I wish to offend just that I will speak my mind). Liberals are dumb to embrace it as the government could easily change the definition of hate to include criticism of the government. It would not even take a vote. Liberals always want to play the moraliser looking out for the small guy getting that saintly warm glow but seem oblivious to the terrible harm they do to constitutional safeguards.

I don't buy into that world view and you shore as hell have no right to potentially criminalise me because of your fear of offending minorities or anyone else. How the hell can you avoid offending all minority or protected groups all the time and still speak your mind??

Please don't take me as being hostile to you I am just up on freedom of speech to the point I would die rather than submit to limits. :)
John the Monkey mind
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:15 am

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby Monsoon » Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:33 pm

No, I am not five, and perhaps I should take offence at such a suggestion :P

Anyway, as I said (several times) I agree with you in principle.

Societies exist only because of agreed rules. In earlier days you might reasonably expect to be ejected from society for transgressing rules (or worse). Today we are much more liberal and a lot of people abuse that environment. This makes our society at times unpleasant and uncomfortable.

Personally I would at least try to behave equitably with others. If I give offence then I apologise immediately upon discovery irrespective of whether I feel I am right or wrong. I just find life is smoother this way.

Unfortunately there are far too many people who will - to use the old cliche - take a mile when given an inch. It's deliberate and cynical, and that is why I say that our societies are, taken as a whole, immature.

I like free speech, I support free speech, never suggest otherwise.

Mind you, there is obviously something wrong or we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we? And it is never a one-way street on these issues.

It is a sorry state when the pursuit of freedom becomes a fetter itself. That is really worth considering deeply.
peace and harmony

monsoon
Monsoon
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:10 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby John the Monkey mind » Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:33 pm

Monsoon wrote:Personally I would at least try to behave equitably with others. If I give offence then I apologise immediately upon discovery irrespective of whether I feel I am right or wrong. I just find life is smoother this way.


I agree something is wrong and can see where you are coming from. I feel however that the modern view on "liberal" and "progressive" (lets not forget that both Hitler and Stalin where progressives) morality is total wrong. We have to go back to model closer to Confucius.

"To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it."

"He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it."

Sadly in the West we have abandoned any attempt at virtue ethics and have instead produced a ridiculous set of rights and equalities that have led to a morality every bit as complicated as Rabbinic law based on the Torah or Sheria law and just as open to interpretation (Rabbinic and Islamic law it is fascinating stuff) or occupationally silly outcomes, inconstancies and hypocrites.

Actually I have muddled through a responsibly consistent theoretical and moral underpinning for my beliefs and it leads me to believe that it is wrong to give groups special privileges and protection.

I feel that to make someone part of a protected or victim group or make excuses for their behaviour is to rob them of their "agency".
If someone is an aware and equal human they can act and they can fight their corner and be held accountable for how they live their life and yes even face offence with the rest of us.

Giving someone special protection is effectively saying they are not your equal but need your pity and pity hand outs. Pity is not compassion, the "progressive stack" is like an updated white man's burden and equally ridiculous. Adults no mater their minority group are not children.
I like everyone else have my prejudices but I always leave the door open so someone can gain entry to my regard through their actions or words. I believe most liberals have just as many prejudices but hid them from themselves under a cloak of condescending pity.
Did Martin Luther King need special protection or our piety?

Hell no he straitened his back and stood tall and demanded our respect not a booster seat. What did his critics insulting words prevail them? Did he need people who used abusive words thrown in jail? Respect was his not due to law but due to nature and his "agency". If people had covered him with help and protection and put him on a progressive stack list it would only have subtracted from is agency and his dignity.

I don't like pity it is just a way of looking down on someone and saying "there but for the grace of god go I", how does that make a competent (in faculty) human feel to receive pity? Pity is fine for the relatives of the dead but not for minority groups.
John the Monkey mind
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:15 am

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby chh » Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:59 pm

John, you're just talking about offensive speech, right? Not discrimination in general...
chh
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:09 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby John the Monkey mind » Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:26 pm

chh wrote:John, you're just talking about offensive speech, right? Not discrimination in general...


Yes I am talking about free speech.
I am not a fan of discriminatory legislation and also do not find anything "positive" about discrimination either. A level playing field is really the only fair way and that entails no holding people down or boosting them up. In the public realm discrimination would be hard to justify. I would argue that current equality legislation in the UK now allows for legal discrimination, has become to invasive and leads to litigious behaviour. Justice needs to go back to being blind.

When you get into the realm of the private individual it can get less clear but a good general rule is public versus private realms e.g. business or social.
Freedom of association must include freedom of dissociation but when you are offering a service like running a shop you should not exclude groups of people. You can't choose my friends (rhetorical as I don't avoid groups as friends) but I can't choose who can walk into my Tesco.
I also can't force someone to eat at an Indian restraint or kids to like spicy food (see above, also they pulled in parents for questioning on this in the UK although I can't seem to find the link). Public services should not discriminate but private individual have their own minds and it gets silly to police their actions to greatly.

I would also argue that political parties (could you imagine the American revaluation with membership open to monarchists? What ever the membership elections are open to all citizens so the actual danger from this is small), private clubs (why cant gay people have gay only private members bars or men smoke cigars far from women?) and religious organisations should be able to limit membership (trying to make some traditional Jewish temples take in converts would not work out as they often require people to be born into the religion). This might offend people but I see it as being the far end of freedom of expression and association. If you force open every door you have a police state and water that is to pure has no fish.

Still this might be better for the general discussion section as we are getting way of topic again :)
John the Monkey mind
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:15 am

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby Monsoon » Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:08 am

We're not coming at this problem from very different positions - even though there is some clashing!

In general I accept what you are saying and agree with it. However, when you talk about our current lack of moral virtue are you not defending my point about the immaturity of our society? As this is certainly what I was alluding too.

In the world of today, if you want to get in my face and scream abuse at me, do I not also have the right to deny you that access? Does your right to make noise exceed my right to have peace? Talking about how it actually is today and not how it should be.

Obviously it is nowhere near as simple as that, but you get the idea.

Most days I walk from my work, past the local hospital and down to the supermarket to get lunch. Usually there are protesters outside the hospital campaigning against abortions. They don't bother me, I don't bother them. If any of them approach me directly I make it plain that their advance is unwelcome. We have no problems. If they were to follow me down the street haranguing me, then we would have a problem. Where is the line to be drawn in this?

Remember we are not talking about the time of Confucius, we are talking about the here and now, with all its warts and pustules.
peace and harmony

monsoon
Monsoon
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:10 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby John the Monkey mind » Sun Feb 10, 2013 6:28 am

Monsoon wrote:We're not coming at this problem from very different positions - even though there is some clashing!

In general I accept what you are saying and agree with it. However, when you talk about our current lack of moral virtue are you not defending my point about the immaturity of our society? As this is certainly what I was alluding too.


We are agreeing about the problem I am say that using a set of laws is the wrong approach and just enslaves us wile not really improving anything. If people endeavor to have more virtue and society promotes this it would be far more effective. At the moment society pushes "get rich or die trying" and the tearful story of a drug-dealing thug.

In the world of today, if you want to get in my face and scream abuse at me, do I not also have the right to deny you that access? Does your right to make noise exceed my right to have peace? Talking about how it actually is today and not how it should be.


This is covered by public order offence and really not a free speech issue. I am saying I should be free to say any of the offensive thing not get straight in your face and scream them. Even in the now famous Emma West video she is not screaming in peoples faces. In fact none of the examples I posted above involved screaming in people faces just stating views.
We had a good balance since before WW2 (introduced as the fascists were going into Jewish parts of London and screaming in the face of passing Jews I believe) and till about 1997.

Most days I walk from my work, past the local hospital and down to the supermarket to get lunch. Usually there are protesters outside the hospital campaigning against abortions. They don't bother me, I don't bother them. If any of them approach me directly I make it plain that their advance is unwelcome. We have no problems. If they were to follow me down the street haranguing me, then we would have a problem. Where is the line to be drawn in this?

Again you are confusing free speech with public order offences. What they say is fine but if they are screaming in your face and following you home its to much.

Remember we are not talking about the time of Confucius, we are talking about the here and now, with all its warts and pustules.

Confucius was talking about his here and now. His ideas still stand.
John the Monkey mind
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:15 am

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby Monsoon » Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:56 pm

You know, if you have a good way to get back onto a morally virtuous path that is applicable to whole populations, then please tell us what it is.

It's not that I don't agree with this, it is rather that (as you pointed out) social forces are promoting something quite different. You are looking for nothing less than a genuine paradigm shift in societal and individual mores. Well good for you! I would support that - in fact I believe I incoprorate such an approach in my own life already. Good luck against Big Corp though, that's going to be a tough battle.

Free speech versus public order offence? Where does one end and the other begin?

The mourners at the funeral that was disrupted by the Westboro baptists (it's an easy example) had every right to be able to conduct their religious ceremony in peace and without prejudice. Some may say the WBs were simply exercising free speech (and that is certainly the line their weaselly lawyer took) but I think they crossed the line into public order offence territory.

Further, for those people who find themselves in the public eye as part of their profession/fame, extra care must be taken concerning what they say, as their influence on society is disproportionally greater than the average person.

Ultimately I think it is a question of scale.

If you and I were talking in a bar and I said that I think all illegal immigrants should be deported back home without appeal, well... that's just my opinion in a private conversation. If I raise the issue in a formal way to various authorities or in a public forum, once again that is just my opinion, and it sits nicely in your view of free speech. If I stand on the street corner waving a banner saying "Immigrants go home!" then I run the very real risk of inciting violence from the people I am targeting. This would now be a public order offence.

So, while I agree that public order offences and free speech should be dealt with differently, the fact is that they actually live on the same spectrum of action.

The funny thing is that I strongly believe that if people did not take offence so quickly and easily then those people who would give offence deliberately would realise that they had run out of audience! There might be a sharp decline in inflammatory rhetoric - although calling some of the ridiculous things people say in public 'rhetoric' is stretching a defintion. :D
peace and harmony

monsoon
Monsoon
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:10 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby pete5770 » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:17 pm

Monsoon wrote: If I stand on the street corner waving a banner saying "Immigrants go home!" then I run the very real risk of inciting violence from the people I am targeting.


Ya, like getting shot at or beaten badly.
pete5770
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:16 pm

Re: An Embarrassment of Riches

Postby brer_momonga » Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:58 pm

why is it each time someone attempts to call folks out on being rude, the conversation turns to some big debate on the finer points of free speech? it's not a free speech issue - it's just manners, simple as that. Modern western society is too tolerant of rudeness. I live in Philadelphia where there's trash all over the place - folks don't respect their neighbors. There are all of these excuses for obesity, unemployment, littering - you name it - but a root cause is not having good manners. Sorry if I sound like Margaret Thatcher! But seriously, anyone who practices martial arts knows that it teaches us good manners. We point our toes toward our opponent. one of the reasons why? because it's polite. One of the reasons why martial applications are hidden - it's polite. How is it that we spend so much time practicing a routine that passes down among other things, good manners, we forget to use our good manners so often? rant done. lol

Greg Jah wrote: As to the original post by Monsoon, this is an area that I have struggled with for much of my life. Especially when I was younger, I would often start things with great enthusiasm but have a hard time finishing because my interest and energy started pulling me elsewhere. Right now I have pared my martial arts training down to three days a week of boxing/ FMA, and two days a week of concentrated Tai Chi practice (currently working on learning the Yang 108). I try to do 15 - 20 minutes of Qigong & Tai Chi practice each morning. I also try to do 20 - 30 minutes of meditation each day.

For me, the importance of a good instructor and good training partners cannot be overstated. I find that when I have both then my training is much more focused, and I get deeper into the art, than when I am left to my own devices.


couldn't agree more Greg. I need lots of review and our master doesn't always have time to show me this and that over and over again until I finally see it. training with my kung fu brothers helps me get deeper into the art. I'm hit or miss practicing by myself - sometimes I give it 100% solo - but it's hard to stay in the moment. Practicing with my brothers helps me stay on point - (took me over a year to find them at the school though) if I practice on my own I could waste my own time, but practicing in a group - I'd feel bad if I wasted my brothers' time.
brer_momonga
Forum Specialist
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:36 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

PreviousNext

Return to Taijiquan / Tai Chi Chuan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron