I am here to offer a competitive viewpoint concerning our current state. From my viewpoint the importance of me, looking back at where the point of view is offered, is not the point. The point is to share viewpoints so as to then increase the accuracy of every point of view seeking to increase the accuracy of the current viewpoint. In other words the idea is not to judge the messenger, or "shoot the messenger,' and the idea is not to defeat an argument, rather the idea is to see more viewpoints in the effort to find potentially better viewpoints as a process not unlike the pursuit of happiness, which is a phrase, a play on words, a viewpoint, an offer of perspective, and directly in opposition to the obvious alternative goal, path, moral choice, knowable as crime. In this pursuit of happiness there have been many competitive viewpoints offered into the pool, or into the network, or into the many forums, and if possible I'd like to figure out how better to avoid inspiring the "shoot the messenger" responses to my angle of view introduced here and now. How does one avoid inspiring negativity aiming at any single person who offers words on a forum when the words challenge the negativity itself? My first post is already offered and it is the culmination of a lot of work over the course of 3 decades. I hope that positive results are possible here on this forum, the least measure of which may be absolute silence instead of any negativity whatsoever aimed at anyone who offers a point of view. The idea, as I see it, is to know better from worse information, and then use that information in pursuit of better instead of worse. In other words the source of the information is secondary to the content of the information. I am Joe, and the information offered is not me, so that is one point of view offered at the start: please consider the information offered, and please consider that I am not the information offered, so why will someone choose to shoot the messenger? Having offered all that above, and having more than a few negative experiences on forums, I'll return here to document any examples that I think are examples of someone shooting the messenger whereby I am the target of that negativity. This is, to me, a positive, albeit defensive, strategy invented, produced, and maintained for that specifically expressed purpose of defense against negative personal attacks that so often plague positive discussions of controversial topics. These days are unique in human existence but certain patterns are playing out in a predictable way.
Now that's what I call 'hitting the ground running' - it's almost as much as I've posted in 4 months. Hello Joe, whaddya know!
I took your advice. I am now the first one on this board to like one of your posts. Me. Noone else, Unique for all time BAHAHAHAHA. I go now to plot nefarious uses for my newfound powers. Oh, Welcome.
Hi Joe. Totally agree. Just joined up today. This is my first post. I'm hear to learn about my fellow human beings and their perspectives. I'm not here for an agenda per se, but I, like all people have my opinions and I think it healthy to have them challenged to either fine tune the ones that I have or be persuaded to rethink them. -Dobbs
Thanks for the welcoming words. The subject matter of my study is naturally controversial, as the subject matter concerns controversy. The idea is to avoid injury done to innocent people as a result of controversy. So in part there is that understanding discovered during study whereby some people choose those ends and those means as their chosen path through life. From that clear and present danger the idea of voluntary mutual defense arises. Those who share the voluntary mutual defense idea are cooperating toward that end against those whose idea is to cause injury to innocent people (with malice aforethought) because they can in the absence of effective defense.
