Toons- R E S P E C T

[n2doc]

[baldguy]

1. It's telling that the RW concocts a controversy about Obama being polite to his host.

[sui generis]

2. agreed but

I do not like your Ghandi "sins" at all.

-Wealth without Work
Define "wealth" globally and meaningfully. Try not to leave out all the poor fat people in America with HDTV's.

-Pleasure without Conscience
Ban babies.

-Science without Humanity
Technically, science is pure of humanity or it's not science. It's a great goal but a false standard.

-Knowledge without Character
That describes "information". Technically, knowledge is information with character.

-Politics without Principle
Nonsense phrase.

-Commerce without Morality
Reality. And: define morality. Try not to leave out all the people telling everyone else they can't get married and manage their own assets within the context of their family.

-Worship without Sacrifice
Worship is for superstitious goat herders who can't get through life without a lord to guide them. And: another nonsense phrase.

I did not know these ideals were attributed to ghandi. I am disappointed.





Fight the parasites that get fat on America's fear! (thanks Rachel!)

[ZombieHorde]

3. Are you claiming poor people don't work? nt

[sui generis]

7. no: this was hyperbole.

I find ghandi's judgmentalism a bit strange. Maybe dated would be a better term.

[Matariki]

23. "Worship is for superstitious goat herders" isn't judgemental?

have a look in your mirror pal.

[sui generis]

29. opinionated perhaps

but again, hyperbole.

[ZombieHorde]

36. Are you suggesting superstitious goat herders should not worship? nt

[sui generis]

38. that was funny

no, I will admit here that I should not have been so inflammatory on that particular jibe. I personally would like to have a living bodhisattva to instill wisdom in every aspect of life so I won't have to struggle through the marshes on my own, but I have made a choice to find my own way. What is wrong with the golden rule? Fairness is the single word I'd distill Ghandi down to - or at least, seeking fairness. In some ways I think it's irresponsible of spiritual humane leadership to talk about "worship" - a concept that is utterly and absolutely alien to me.

I don't know or particularly care about the phases of Ghandi's philosophical growth; but for me a syllogism should stand entirely on its own.

[baldguy]

4. They’re just lessons in humanity.

Just remember this, sui generis, that these poor fat people you're talking about ... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in America. Is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a decent home? Gandhi didn't think so. People were human beings to him. But to you, and to the warped, frustrated old conservatives who spout the same nonsense, they're cattle.

Those who have the REAL wealth – the brokers, bankers & businessmen – who actually do the least work - they can buy & sell human beings as if they were cattle, with the same results. Just remember, that members of the middle class (i.e. the majority of the country) have much more in common with your disparaged poor, fat Americans with their shiny trinkets than they do with the truly wealthy.


If you put any thought into any of these other points, I'm sure you'd discount the RW bullshit and recognize the truth.

[sui generis]

9. you had me until the ad hominem

Here's your one free pass, don't waste it.

This isn't about class war. PS. everybody dies, some just go down the path a bit sooner than others.

How FUCKING DARE you say that people don't matter to me? Align me with warped frustrated old conservatives? Are you out of your mother fucking mind? Get back here, baldy, I'm taking back your free pass.

The example I gave was to demonstrate that you shouldn't paint with a broad brush, and YET, you come back at me blowing and going like a colon full of cheetos and chili. Nice going there - making the assumption that I was on the side of the uberelitist poor-eating rich.

What a fucked up thing to say. Read it again. If you have questions, ask me, because your telepathy is on the fritz. I disagree with ghandi's high-priest pronouncements. He was a good man, not a saint. His shit stank like everyone else's and he was compelled to offer gems of wisdom to a culture completely different than we live in now. No more or less than anyone else however, he would have despised your comment more than mine. Of all people Ghandi knew that the world is not made up of two colors alone.

[baldguy]

24. Forgive me. I'll condemn those poor people who are fat & stupid along with you.

Of course they don't really work. They're poor aren't they?

(Just understand that anyone a few rungs up the food chain can think the same about you.)

And, of course, capitalists are the world's saviors. They shouldn't be expected to contribute anything to society - or treat other people with the dignity & respect that human beings deserve.



If you don't believe in Randian Objectivist bullshit, why are you posting it?
:eyes:

[sui generis]

30. Now you associate me with Ayn Rand

for the mod: Accusing people of being Randian should also be disallowed "in the rules". It really is offensive here on DU, no less than accusing someone of being a freeper.

And to my bald friend:

I'm on your side, dickhead. Now I've lost my patience. Go fuck yourself with a running chainsaw you fake ass ghandi wannabe. You don't know the first thing about humanity. It was hyperbole, not an assault on your identity. Grow up. I've been here long enough to engage normal people in a discussion, I wasn't out to hurt your feelings or judge you - just to have an opinion on the byline.

I'm sorry you interpreted it as anti-humanistic or any other bullshit, but you do not get to put words in my mouth or tell me what I meant, when I am telling you right now.

Please put me on ignore or else get used to me. We really ARE on the same side.

[baldguy]

32. You judge people whom you deem to be "poor" as being unworthy of the benefits of modern technology.

And you also judge them to be too "fat" - as if they waste the resources that we so condescendingly grant to them. This is the epitome of objectivist thinking: those that have wealth are the only people that matter; everyone else is barely human & only exist to serve the elites.

What you don't get (and what objectivists refuse to acknowledge) is that to the top 1% who own 60% of this country the poor - those sorry suckers who don't work enough (in your opinion) & who are too fat (in your opinion) & consume for too much for their socio-economic station (in your opinion) - those poor people ARE THE SAME AS YOU and 95% of everyone else. YOU ARE POOR! Anyone a couple rungs up on the economic food chain can make the same obtuse judgments about you, and they'd be just as correct in doing so - which is not at all.

If you don't like being tagged as a Rand fan, stop repeating their myths.

[sui generis]

37. You are absolutely putting words in my mouth.

The skinny of it, so to speak:

I was stating that wealth is relative. How is that objectivist? I was saying poor people in America are often overweight and have access to resources that poor people in the rest of the world do not. There is not a single standard. How you got to Ayn Rand from that is still beyond me.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I'll be the big man here and apologize for not being more clear - I was not attacking you at all. I just have a real issue accepting blind pithies from anyone. Ghandi was a good man for the most part, but that doesn't require blind agreement with every thing he said.

I am surprised and disappointed though that that my fellow DU'ers immediately DID post real and personal attacks against me - what a world, what a world.

It's not easy being green.

[Blue_Tires]

25. well I've always liked reading them...

[baldguy]

27. Thank you.

I like to think that they keep me pointed in the right direction.

[gtar100]

5. Wow, I didn't realize this could be so misunderstood.

Your interpretations appear to be through a very narrow lens. As a suggestion, try reading up on Gandhi a bit more before trying to twist his words into something they are not. I believe your protests reveal more than you care to.

[sui generis]

10. Reveal? So I'm a super spy?

Maybe reading is indeed fundamental, and you should go get some yourself. It's on sale, in any of my brazillian other posts.

I don't have an agenda. I am allowed to disagree. I don't like the byline. If it is misinterpreted by me, then it is easily misinterpreted.

Jesus fucking christ take the subtle ad hominems and stuff them in your sigmoid colon please. grow up, we are allowed to disagree. I expected conversation, not judgment, children.

[sui generis]

14. and another thing

If you post a philosophical byline, it should stand on its own, without context. Otherwise it IS open to interpretation. I should need to be a scholar of ghandi to have an opinion on simple text?

Yes the interpretation was narrow, but I disagree with the language, and that is necessarily a narrow view without definitions of terms.

Thank you at least for not attempting personal digs like the others here :eyes: but forgiven. Of all the things ghandi would have cherished it would be discussion of ideas without resorting to name calling and implied pejoratives.

[gtar100]

39. Yes everything is open to interpretation but I think you're

missing the juicy parts. I find there's a lot of substance in those words. For example, "Pleasure without Morality". Now you could go off in the direction of moral as in the "moral majority" crap which isn't moral at all, or you could take the higher ground and see the essential, non-egocentric part of morality in which the essential meaning leads us to care for each other.

I know a lot of people also get hung up on the word "sin" as well. Too much history behind it but I think if we look at the meaning of the word itself outside of the abuse its had by preachers and other god-fearing folk, to me it points to self-destruction. But more than just abuse of the mind, body and environment. It's something that points at the essence of who we are, indicating that there really is a good and bad side to things, it's not all relative. The universe is large and we could end up burning in a sort of hell because of the choices we make or we can work on making this a better place. That's how I see it anyhow and the "seven deadly sins" are like somebody rising up and saying, "hey, brother, don't go that way because it really sucks down that road". We can either dismiss it and find out for ourselves whether that's right or not, or follow that feeling in ourselves that just feels right, even if we can't explain it.

But what the hell, this is only a blog post and you may think I'm full of shit. So be it. I'm not trying to be but I'll find out one way or the other. Your honesty is refreshing even if it rubs the wrong way. :)

[Festivito]

6. Oh my. You'd need a lot of work.

Wealth: Having enough or more.

I don't think it leaves out Americans, poor, fat, with an HDTV.

Are you referring to working poor or non-working?

If working, are you referring to their investment choices?

If non-working, are you referring to them not spending sixteen hours a day, seven days a week searching for work? (But, wouldn't you want them to keep abreast of day to day life so they would not seem out of place when talking in interviews?)

It seems to me that expanse of written words, but with little, very little, depth.

I see a wealth of expression, but little work in being complete.
I see sick pleasure in being contrarian, but no conscience of being well with it.
Should I see technical excellence of engineering of death showers and human incinerators, and not question the humanity that engages that engineering science?

But, enough, I am wealthy enough around DU.

I wish you good days of fine rain.

[cliffordu]

8. Yep. Perfect.

[sui generis]

12. and you.

please feel free to add non-commentary to another ad hominem non-comment.

What the fuck is the matter with you assholes? I didn't attack anyone - yet you shit heads just spewed crap as if your were personally offended?

What the huh?

[cliffordu]

16. Nah, you're doing just fine the way you are.

I'll leave it alone, as teh stoopid is strong in you. Have fun!

[sui generis]

18. Care to elaborate with examples?

Sad to see you this way outside of GLBT. I disagreed with ghandi, ergo I am evil? Another day clifford; remember you are now name calling, and that's really disappointing.

[cliffordu]

20. Well.......

:rofl: :bounce:

Who pissed on your cornflakes???

GANDHI???

[sui generis]

21. sweetie of all people you should be concerned about sins

not.

so why do you care if I disagree about ghandi broadly describing the world in terms of seven sins? When did I piss in your cornflakes?

I don't understand your attitude towards me at all - you've always been thoughtful if not outright friendly. What happened?

[cliffordu]

28. I think you are fine. Thin skinned in light of the tone of your criticism,

but there ya go.

I just thought it odd that anyone would go to THAT length to pee on a sig line, that's all.

I've done it, but not over Gandhi - Mother Theresa is my target.

:rofl:

[sui generis]

31. ya got me

jeepers - you're right it started as my opinion and it became a condemnation of poor people everywhere. Damn I hate being the monster - peasants with pitchforks are so FATTENING, but they are crunchy in the middle.

edited to add ***Hyperbole Alert***

:P

[JoeyT]

26. What's wrong with disagreeing with Gandhi?

I've read up on Gandhi and read his own words.

"A general belief seems to prevail in the colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than the savages or natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir."

"It is one thing to register natives who would not work, and whom it is very difficult to find out if they absent themselves, but it is another thing -and most insulting - to expect decent, hard-working, and respectable Indians, whose only fault is that they work too much, to have themselves registered and carry with them registration badges."

"Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness."

"A little judicious extra taxation would do no harm; in the majority of cases it compels the native to work for at least a few days a year."

Kaffir = insulting term for native Africans, by the way. Kinda like the "N" word in the US.


So we're not allowed to question screaming racists just because they've said some good things too? Shall we turn to the wisdom of the Grand Wizard next?

[baldguy]

34. Nothing. He was racist, sexist, nationalist and distrustful of industrial development.

He was a product of his time.

We can criticize him for his less enlightened views, and at the same time recognize his unique insights on Western Civilization & learn about his political tactics and strategies to deal with an intransigent govt.

Just like one notorious kaffir who was able to look beyond Gandhi's shortcomings. He was named Martin Luther King Jr.

[JoeyT]

35. I agree completely.

[sui generis]

11. why exactly are you judging me? what did you THINK I meant?

more importantly, what did you think my "agenda" was?

The fact that your response is judgmental and angry, and quite frankly assholish tells me everything I need to know about you. I didn't assault anyone in my reply. Why are you compelled to assault me?

I wish you good days of re-reading and more thoughtful response.

[Festivito]

42. I accidentally responded to my own post. See below please. /nt

[Festivito]

41. That you do not like the philosophical writ of Ghandi's 7...

And what you wrote does say something about you, and would take a lot of work to work it out -- either for me to understand what you really mean if I have erred, or to have you understand an error on your part.

I did not think I was angry, nor shitty, nor unduly stubborn (asinine) considering it is a single reply post.

But, you did not answer a single thing I presented as argument against your argument.

Perhaps I should take your last line as a projection of promise:
"I wish you good days of re-reading and more thoughtful response."

Sorry that I missed a day. I look forward to your more thoughtful response.

[sui generis]

45. The whole thread got me dander up

I thought I could make a statement that would provoke conversation, not verbal abuse, but alas I got fragged by my fellow DU'ers.

Seriously, there was a lot of posturing by nearly everyone here and it was ad hominem. Here's a principle: don't swing at someone until swung at.

Funny how the people who were so instantly outraged that I disagreed with a statement had not problem accusing me of being an objectivist randian, of being mentally or emotionally damaged, or other snideness.

I'm here because I presume that I am among friends, so when I say "Worship without Sacrifice" is an alien concept to me, rather colorfully, it doesn't require that I be crucified. I also don't like the 'a lot of work' *and I meant that as a matter of preference, not hatefulness* because work in this context implies a tedious chore.

It was supposed to be considerably more lighthearted than work. Ban babies, really? Come on guys - here's to more thoughtful reading and posting, period. No interpretation required.

[Festivito]

46. With all the flying ad hominems, at least no one accused you of making bad coffee.

Be thankful for that.

(BTW, I don't think it qualifies as ad hominem if they respond to the issue alongside calling a few names. It may be bad manners, but not ad hominem.)

Long ago, pubbies were on DU and called me every name in the book. In response I would say: well, I may be A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N, but, what about the issue? Then, again, they never accused me of making bad coffee.

You have yet to respond to the first of the seven deadly sins response I made to you, my dear sui generis.

[Electric Monk]

13. Cartoons are great, but check out the tangent up-thread before it gets deleted

wow

[sui generis]

15. sad.

it wasn't intended to go tangential - but some people got their dander up without good reason.

[Electric Monk]

17. might have something to do with the Ghandi bashing

Try reading it again, I don't think you quite got his meaning the first time.

[sui generis]

19. it wasn't ghandi bashing.

I disagreed with those particular comments, aligned as "sins". It's that simple. Not the man. Not his entire philosophy. Just those seven lines.

[sui generis]

22. sorry. accidental hijack. I love the toon!

:blush:

mea culpa.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Create a storm in a tea pot...

[malaise]

43. Freaking perfect

Rec

[Soylent Brice]

44. kick

[Lasher]

47. Thanks, this makes a great reply to wingnut emails.

A toon for a toon, heh heh.