Nothing. It just shows that life can suck no matter what you believe.
You just proved the point. What we believe has no effect on what happens in our world, only if we accept it as it is can we make changes to alter the outcomes.
What we believe has no effect on what happens in our world, only if we accept it as it is can we make changes to alter the outcomes.
This is worded somewhat awkwardly. Are you saying that our beliefs mean nothing and that it's only acting on your beliefs that brings change to the world?
I don't disagree with that. But here is the problem. Take HungryJoe, for example. He leads a very comfortable life. To be happy, he doesn't have to change a thing about the world. Yet a reasonable observer could conclude that he's not happy about many things. Why be unhappy when there is no need for it? Look at Apreche. He's much happier than HungryJoe. Both live comfortable lives. Apreche has a unique ability to know what he can control and what he can't control. He focuses on those things that he can influence. And therein lies the difference. Liberals are often tortured by what they can't control. Apparently, according to the scientists, conservatives are better able to accept what they can't change. I'd submit that this makes conservatives much more efficient. They direct their attention on matters that they can influence, and are less distracted by matters they can't influence.
It is only the drive to change what cannot be changed that moves mountains in our world. It is the foundation of human progress.
Absolute rubbish. The people trying to move mountains achieve nothing. The people who know their limitations, accept them, and act within them, make the bulk of the progress in our society. That's how things improve - incrementally. Dreamers just waste space.
Let me give you an example. A company called Douglas made crappy prop driven airplanes. But they kept improving them. Bit by bit, the got better. Eventually, they made the MD-11. It was great. They didn't get there overnight. They set achievable goals.
Now take the guy who dreamed of flying at 600mph when planes were flying at a fraction of that speed. Unless he stopped dreaming, and started thinking about what he could control and improve, he amounted to nothing.
conservatives are better able to accept what they can't change.
Can't change alone, you mean. If one person tries to do something about a huge problem, they can't make a difference. If a lot of people get together and all do a little bit, then great things will be done. But it is true that you have to worry about immediate problems as well. Focus on the small problems and the small things you can do to help fix the big problems. Really, it is only acting on your beliefs that changes things. It's kind of like, if you think of saying something but don't say it, to everyone except you it is the same as if you never had that thought in the first place. It does not exist for the outside world.
Absolute rubbish. The people trying to move mountains achieve nothing. The people who know their limitations, accept them, and act within them make the bulk of the progress in our society. That's how things improve - incrementally. Dreamers just waste space.
I disagree. If not for JFK's dream to put a man on the moon within ten years of attaining space flight, we would never have made the progress we did in space flight. Look at what NASA has done since then. They have squandered in comparison.
If not for JFK's dream to put a man on the moon within ten years of attaining space flight, we would never have made the progress we did in space flight. Look at what NASA has done since then. They have squandered in comparison.
See my above edit about the Douglas aircraft corporation. Dreaming is fine for motivation, but it does absolutely nothing for actual change. To make change happen, you have to accept your limitations. By accepting your limitations, you recognize the problems and figure out how to tackle limitations in realistic steps. A semantic argument, but an important distinction nonetheless.
I guess I'm trying to say is that dreaming is good - but only if coupled with a grasp of reality.
As for broad social change... how possible is it? If people act together, it is no doubt possible. But that's not going to happen. Period. Look at Obama. Politically, he's actually quite moderate. That's because you HAVE to be moderate to get elected. Bill Clinton was a moderate, and so is Obama. So the "change" were talking about is slight. Why? Because he had to appeal to moderates. He also had to beat the Republicans. Sorry, but Bernie Sanders isn't ever going to become president. Never. Not ever. Period. You can dream it, but it aint going to happen. That's where dreaming is a waste of time. If you volunteer for "Bernie for President" you will have wasted a big chunk of your life. You can either be miserable about this, or accept it and be happy. Apreche would accept it and be happy. (Although he wouldn't have a girlfriend to be happy with.)
Humanity equals difference. Frankly, life would suck if we all agreed. A lot of problems might be solved, but it would be at the expense of our very humanity. I'm not willing to make that trade-off. The net effect would be for the worse.
Sorry, but Bernie Sanders isn't ever going to become president.
Even if Bernie Sanders did become president, it wouldn't change that much. The president doesn't have that much power. The separation of powers into the three branches of government would prevent almost all of his craziness from actually happening. The government would move very slowly and do very little until he was out of office. The exception would be if the entire congress were also crazy. Not likely.
It is only the drive to change what cannot be changed that moves mountains in our world. It is the foundation of human progress.
Absolute rubbish. The people trying to move mountains achieve nothing. The people who know their limitations, accept them, and act within them, make the bulk of the progress in our society. That's how things improve - incrementally. Dreamers just waste space.
I both agree and disagree with this statement. I'm of the mindset that people who only have lofty goals will never achieve anything, unless they have some grounding in reality. That's where being able to assess reality as it actually is comes into play; you have to be able to fairly assess your limitations and the situation around you. Then, you can set a goal, even a high lofty one, and have a realistic plan for how you might achieve it.
Having the lofty goal gives you continuous drive. Having a grounding in reality allows you to make real progress towards that goal. This is how the scientific method works, fundamentally. We try to learn everything there is to learn, while accepting the fact that it's not possible to learn it all. That makes for the greatest challenge there is, and that drives people to do a lot of work, but in a reasonable, step-wise fashion.
So, set a lofty goal, and then set small, rational steps towards achieving it. Accept that you may never achieve it, but always try to make progress towards it.
EDIT: Read a later post. We agree on this point, I think.
EDIT 2: Of course, this means that you need to have a fundamental grasp of what's really there. If the extreme conservative base really deludes itself, that's not a very good way to do things, now is it?
As for happiness, don't confuse dissatisfaction with unhappiness. They're closely related but not quite the same thing. I may be dissatisfied with the status quo, but that's because I have lofty goals. The dissatisfaction drives me ever forward. However, being grounded in reality also allows me to appreciate what I have, and so that allows me to actually be happy.
The stereotypical "unhappy liberal" is really the "unrealistic liberal." Same way that unhappy conservatives are just being unrealistic.
I agree. You must set lofty and impossible goals. However, you must realistically work one step at a time towards achieving the impossible goal in order to come as close to achieving it as possible. If you set goals that are not lofty and impossible, you limit your potential. If you don't work towards them with a realistic mindset, you will not move forward as quickly as is possible.
I agree. You must set lofty and impossible goals. However, you must realistically work one step at a time towards achieving the impossible goal in order to come as close to achieving it as possible. If you set goals that are not lofty and impossible, you limit your potential. If you don't work towards them with a realistic mindset, you will not move forward as quickly as is possible.
Wait didn't we JUST HAVE A STUPID FIGHT ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK? ABOUT BEING SPECIAL? WHY ARE YOU AGREEING WITH ME NOW UISDGIOUSGPIèBG{DICUGFS_..... ...I'm okay.
I was like...you have to start small to achieve something big. Think realistically and gradually work with others to obtain your big goals.
As for happiness, don't confuse dissatisfaction with unhappiness. They're closely related but not quite the same thing. I may be dissatisfied with the status quo, but that's because I have lofty goals.
One of the reasons conservatives are so happy using this little meme is that their positions usually don't surviv close scrutiny. So, they like for their followers to be unquestioning and incurious. To that end, they like to tell them that questioning things leads to unhappiness.
I'm willing to straighten out the avatar when Joe indicates that he's willing to drop the crap. I've let the dust settle for many weeks, and Joe came right out of the gate with the same junk. I'm not claiming that I didn't take the bait, but that's something I've got to work on. I most certainly can work on it better if there isn't instigation.
I have a sad feeling that my avatar is going to stay like this for a while, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
I've made a genuine effort, though. Surely you can see that my recent posts have been nothing but appropriate debate. Let's hope Joe follows my example.
Oddly enough, I have seen a lot of conservatives like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and so forth that don't seem very happy at all.
It's not odd. There are deviations in any sample. Also, no doubt you recognize that a lot of what they do is an act. I'm sure that they're not too sad when they deposit their paycheck. Besides... why are you watching these people? No doubt that is counter to your happiness.
Adults can have a good chuckle. At least that's what I'll do once we change our names back. In the grand scheme of life, this is about as minor as it gets. It's definitely worth a laugh. I respect Joe. We're just good at driving each other crazy. But I don't doubt for a second that he's done a lot of positive things in his life. I'm not sure why he felt the need to resume antagonization toward me on a day that should be one of the happiest of his life, but whatever. I didn't take it personally. It's not a big deal to me.
Adults can have a good chuckle. At least that's what I'll do once we change our names back. In the grand scheme of life, this is about as minor as it gets. It's definitely worth a laugh.
No, you're wrong. The Internet is serious business. I know, because I'm a young (ish) liberal; therefore, I know everything.
You know what, grow up. I may be a punk kid, but even I know that this is not how adults behave.
Comments
I don't disagree with that. But here is the problem. Take HungryJoe, for example. He leads a very comfortable life. To be happy, he doesn't have to change a thing about the world. Yet a reasonable observer could conclude that he's not happy about many things. Why be unhappy when there is no need for it? Look at Apreche. He's much happier than HungryJoe. Both live comfortable lives. Apreche has a unique ability to know what he can control and what he can't control. He focuses on those things that he can influence. And therein lies the difference. Liberals are often tortured by what they can't control. Apparently, according to the scientists, conservatives are better able to accept what they can't change. I'd submit that this makes conservatives much more efficient. They direct their attention on matters that they can influence, and are less distracted by matters they can't influence.
It is only the drive to change what cannot be changed that moves mountains in our world. It is the foundation of human progress.
Let me give you an example. A company called Douglas made crappy prop driven airplanes. But they kept improving them. Bit by bit, the got better. Eventually, they made the MD-11. It was great. They didn't get there overnight. They set achievable goals.
Now take the guy who dreamed of flying at 600mph when planes were flying at a fraction of that speed. Unless he stopped dreaming, and started thinking about what he could control and improve, he amounted to nothing.
I guess I'm trying to say is that dreaming is good - but only if coupled with a grasp of reality.
As for broad social change... how possible is it? If people act together, it is no doubt possible. But that's not going to happen. Period. Look at Obama. Politically, he's actually quite moderate. That's because you HAVE to be moderate to get elected. Bill Clinton was a moderate, and so is Obama. So the "change" were talking about is slight. Why? Because he had to appeal to moderates. He also had to beat the Republicans. Sorry, but Bernie Sanders isn't ever going to become president. Never. Not ever. Period. You can dream it, but it aint going to happen. That's where dreaming is a waste of time. If you volunteer for "Bernie for President" you will have wasted a big chunk of your life. You can either be miserable about this, or accept it and be happy. Apreche would accept it and be happy. (Although he wouldn't have a girlfriend to be happy with.)
Humanity equals difference. Frankly, life would suck if we all agreed. A lot of problems might be solved, but it would be at the expense of our very humanity. I'm not willing to make that trade-off. The net effect would be for the worse.
Having the lofty goal gives you continuous drive. Having a grounding in reality allows you to make real progress towards that goal. This is how the scientific method works, fundamentally. We try to learn everything there is to learn, while accepting the fact that it's not possible to learn it all. That makes for the greatest challenge there is, and that drives people to do a lot of work, but in a reasonable, step-wise fashion.
So, set a lofty goal, and then set small, rational steps towards achieving it. Accept that you may never achieve it, but always try to make progress towards it.
EDIT: Read a later post. We agree on this point, I think.
EDIT 2: Of course, this means that you need to have a fundamental grasp of what's really there. If the extreme conservative base really deludes itself, that's not a very good way to do things, now is it?
As for happiness, don't confuse dissatisfaction with unhappiness. They're closely related but not quite the same thing. I may be dissatisfied with the status quo, but that's because I have lofty goals. The dissatisfaction drives me ever forward. However, being grounded in reality also allows me to appreciate what I have, and so that allows me to actually be happy.
The stereotypical "unhappy liberal" is really the "unrealistic liberal." Same way that unhappy conservatives are just being unrealistic.
...I'm okay.
I was like...you have to start small to achieve something big. Think realistically and gradually work with others to obtain your big goals.
Oddly enough, I have seen a lot of conservatives like Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and so forth that don't seem very happy at all.
See, we can talk about things and make progress towards understanding. Win! Now if only Congress could do that too, but with action...
I have a sad feeling that my avatar is going to stay like this for a while, but I'm cautiously optimistic.
I've made a genuine effort, though. Surely you can see that my recent posts have been nothing but appropriate debate. Let's hope Joe follows my example. It's not odd. There are deviations in any sample. Also, no doubt you recognize that a lot of what they do is an act. I'm sure that they're not too sad when they deposit their paycheck. Besides... why are you watching these people? No doubt that is counter to your happiness.
You shouldn't have abandoned your name. Did you think that one through for even a second?
Care to reset now?
Even I feel guilty about taking possession of your abandoned name.
As soon as Joe accepts my peace offering, I'll change the name.