Fools love to swarm.

Ryazancev wrote:
Something like this
You uneducated. The slogan of Learn, learn, learn, from nature, from life, coined by Vernadsky.

stalker7162534
woodpecker, are you familiar with the concept of hyperbole? or the meaning of the phrase in context (which you freely rip and prepaires it as you please)?
Spoilerphobe and woodpecker

Gauguin
Gauguin wrote:
Well, all right, actions are actions, and the moral law was the same always, because it is divine Will. He stands above both the individual and society.
And, Yes, I forgot that the moral law - it is your own idea of morality and decency as much as the people and epochs that are not relevant to yours, it's not moral laws, and spiritless throwing degradantov.


Gauguin wrote:
If anything, even Socrates was closer to Christ than the Pharisees.
A lot of differences and not to list them all, allocate one main thing in common - Christ globally has shifted the focus from the Pharisees to the external (and often hypocritical) side on the inside spiritual condition of man, and confirmed his primacy. In Judaism, it was enough just external performance.
Indeed, something I had forgotten-as if not in the homeland of Dostoevsky live. Of course, if idiski invented, that is certainly hypocrisy. And it's the same thing but easier and with a kind bearded face in profile - this is an absolute moral truth. I understand.

vftor
vftor wrote:
Values can be different, and morality (cosmic laws) determines the reliability of the human condition that the more important values.
Here nicherta not understand, honestly. Especially the definition of the reliability condition of mankind interested.
vftor wrote:
Morality (the invention of people) comes from values, and is not synonymous with morality.
First, I never claimed otherwise, and secondly depends on who asks.

ColonelJason
ColonelJason wrote:
And, Yes, I forgot that the moral law - it is your own idea of morality
In any case. It is an objective truth, which I not always happy (in serious moments especially) .
ColonelJason wrote:
Indeed, something I had forgotten-as if not in the homeland of Dostoevsky live. Of course, if idiski invented, that is certainly hypocrisy.
No, you do not understand. Talking about the focus on the domestic adoption of the moral law, which Judaism was not. Ie has become important not only act, but also the intention of the person.

Gauguin
Gauguin wrote:
It's an objective truth
Of course, of course.

Gauguin wrote:
Talking about the focus on the domestic adoption of the moral law, which Judaism was not. Ie has become important not only act, but also the intention of the person.
Oh and love the same highly spiritual people who know a lot about true morality, to invent... just now you have Professor Plomin was without repeated experiments, even though the poor guy two years in a row tormented all twins of Albion, and now here's the important thing about a religion so selflessly invent...Who we have mother a sociopath? This interesting article basically (we materialistische, forever, like insects, digging in all sorts of little facts, in contrast to the idealists, in the basis of any claim which the fact is always exactly one and always the same: as they said, it is an objective reality .) http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/5393901/post363172572 home, for us, the thesis [...] the nature of the phrase gives the reader the impression (in fact, completely false) that Judaism only cares about purity of action but Christianity is also about the purity.
But on full sereze thank: you really expanded my views on the issues of Internet controversy, liars and sociopaths. Before, I naively believed that so openly and blatantly lie on the forums can only be fools, for lack of a better polemical methods, but now I see that it is quite effective method and as-if not the most stupid people. Indeed, when you lie something on a serious soup, with a condescending confidence in the evidence of their own right, creating the illusion of ignorance of the opponent
Gauguin wrote:
Something you very strongly bent, the question of a person who is not familiar neither with that, nor with the fact.
the lie looks much more convincing. Bravo, keep it up.

ColonelJason
ColonelJason wrote:
This morning you have a Professor Plomin was without repeated experiments, even though the poor guy two years in a row tormented all twins of Albion
Well, what's the problem? There is at least someone besides Plomin, who reproduced these experiments? The sample should be, my friend. In addition, the reputation of Plomin as a scientist tarnished his long-term faith in the results of major experiments.
ColonelJason wrote:
www.liveinternet.ru/users/5393901/post363172572
And what are you hoping for? The reference to Judea, which (unexpectedly) justifies their religion, quite formulaic and familiar (to me), and obviously degenerative appealing to the public, since the approach to ethics is very utilitarian. For those who seek not God, but a warm place in this world.
ColonelJason wrote:
Indeed, when you lie something on a serious soup
I would like to hear specifically where I lied. If you're talking about his, I may say, insidious disclosure from someone with the nickname Shalom Israel (lol), then I have bad news for you.
.

ColonelJason wrote:
that the moral law - it is your own idea of morality,
Actually, no.
Morality (from the Latin. moralitas, a term introduced by Cicero from the Latin. mores — the accepted tradition, an unwritten rule) — socially accepted beliefs about good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil, as well as a set of rules of conduct arising from these submissions.
This is a public fashion. At the same time she's one, to another another. For example; early immoral, and immoral was the girls goes to bed with a guy before marriage. Today it is not fashionable, although the audience is condemned in every particular. This implies that the moral and even social hypocrisy.

Self-Murderer
Self-Murderer wrote:
Here nicherta not understand, honestly. Especially the definition of the reliability condition of mankind interested.
Morality is a fundamental law for people, which are required for the existence of humanity as a whole. These laws are built on the basic components of man: the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of perfection and self-preservation instinct. For example, for the average person is expressed in a simple formula do Not build your happiness on the unhappiness of others, know thyself and don't commit suicide. Religion is a"sin no more. On the basis of these basic laws is based the morality of a society and the States in relation to their values. Violation of the laws of morality leads either to self-destruction of humanity or the elimination of humanity by the higher beings.
Self-Murderer wrote:
First, I never claimed otherwise, and secondly depends on who asks.
Well, you wrote that I understand. Place punctuation.
Of course depends on who asks. The fate of people depend on higher beings, and from the people themselves, from their morals.

Gauguin
Well, what's the problem?
Oh, no problems, just you're a citizen, you done lied. I have no problem with that, you have to-obviously - too.
There is at least someone besides Plomin, who reproduced these experiments? Yes, of course. Before that and after. Bouchard and McGue, 1981, Loehlin, Willerman and Horn, 1988, and so dalle.

In addition, the reputation of Plomin as a scientist tarnished his long-term faith in the results of major experiments.
Well,on tarnished faith in unproven reputation, to judge, of course, who does not like you.
The reference to Judah Oh, I forgot, I forgot, idiski ever lie. Of course such articles are, I think, a lot, but they are a critique of pure reason, so wash my hands of the people, if anyone reads this, I think everything is clear.
Gera95
Sarcasm (from the Greek literally "to tear flesh") — a type of satirical incrimination, mockery, sarcastic, the highest degree of irony, based not only on a contrast enhanced implied and Express, but also on the immediate intentional nudity implied.
You see, I decided in each , in which they write, to expose themselves to ridicule. It is commendable because what are we without problems?

ColonelJason wrote:
You see, I decided in each , in which they write, to expose themselves to ridicule. It is commendable because what are we without problems?
Resentment — human reaction to perceived as unfair caused disappointment, insult[1] and also caused by these negative emotions
Be offended, be Abigaia; || to be offended than accept that for the offense, to feel hurt, offended.

This is your personal view. For the prophet of truth you're too emotional. And emotions, as you know, bothering to think rationally.

Gera95
In my opinion you do not need to be the use of truth (whatever that means) to say that the person demonstrating an inability to understand the simplest of sarcasm, exposes himself, to put it mildly, weird. With regards to grievances, it is not clear whether you're describing your reaction, or is supposed to be mine. If the latter, then you, as usual, mistaken: as with any communication with the ill person ( and your level of understanding human speech gives us every reason to say the deviations of a medical nature) ,I feel exceptionally uncomfortable and sympathy, neither of which the offense of the question.

ColonelJason how old are you? purely for statistics.

vftor
Yes, so on the Internet I stumbled.But for most people, fool the one who thinks differently,isn't it?
In General, I do not think people are fools,every person in which the matter is experienced,intelligent.
Take we now have here in the thread, sitting on the Internet,and all will be fools to put it crudely.

Nevoeiro
I do not know. I think that in our time, for most people, stupid - it is stupid and naive. But ColonelJason believes that the word fool comes from the adjective bad and in relation to a person always meant stupid. I think is more important, believed that ancient people, when you first identified the word, as the ancients were smarter than today's people.
What about the fact that every man in which the matter is experienced,intelligent, I do not think so.
First experience and intelligence are different concepts. Indeed, something everyone experienced, but not necessarily smart.
Second, the mind (intelligence) is the ability of the deep (detail) to perform something, and then, on the basis of this analysis, in combination with many other factors, to build a system that is synthesized, and to make General conclusion.
And third, I believe that the mind (intellect) and the mind is also different concepts. It is believed that a reasonable man, but I don't think so. How animals have 1-I signaling system (SS) understanding and communicating (the primitive code) and the beginnings of 2-nd signal systems (intelligence) and the person has 1-I S. S. + 2 S. S. and the beginnings of the 3rd S. S. (mind).
Intelligence, unlike intelligence, is able to analyze and systematize phenomena by 3 orders of magnitude (1000 times) at a rate of also on the order of 3 more. The communication is telepathically. People, and not everyone is capable of it, and only briefly, and only in the most critical situation, or when insights.

Hello wrote:
anger and aggression in small doses and in the right situations is required (at least for self defense)
Nobody argues that a little bit of everything as a whole rule, so to speak. Gave examples without providing details.
Anger: forever evil to be still impossible ) Aggression: to attack everybody for any reason and without - also impossible. And where is the line? Is determined by each individual...
Envy: white envy and black. Black - genuine evil man spoils the property of the other only because he can not afford it. An example ;] White - not advertised, it is the norm normal normal person. Because when talking about envy, I think, always imply black or close to it, that is negative.
Hello wrote:
greed - or the thrift
But not here, not otherwise. Two different things. The greedy will not give money (or anything else, examples - life situations, the weight) of anyone and anything. Boas kill, but not give.
Hello wrote:
apathy - nerve cells do not regenerate...
There are a couple of views if we talk about the cells. But they do not matter. Disregard - that's what it's about. You can parse the examples, but only examples, and will show what's what. It would be nice that the examples were for life, there is someone here describes the life of a case for clarity, (I have no such examples). Otherwise you'll have to fantasize )) However, it is OK...
stalker7162534 wrote:
Hundreds of millions of Slavs with wages below the average to live in Russia. The Slavs in Eastern Europe live normally. Even in the Baltic States say live better.
Normally a moot point as far as there are Slavs in Eastern Europe, lol 8)
Fact: the average and minimum are higher than in Russia. The prices of goods and services is also higher than in Russia, but not in all, it is necessary to understand each individual region, for which of course I'm not ready, do not possess completeness of the information. Nevertheless, poor about the same lives, the difference is in the details...
Gauguin wrote:
As well as the sins of the bad not only because some of them can sometimes cause suffering, but by themselves are disgusting.
Support. And though there is a Golden rule of ethics, suitable for all sectors of society, morality evaluates all actions, not only by the criterion of whether the damage to a third party or not. This culture defines how well behaved the person is surrounded by strangers. Morality requires more: how to behave and what people say among friends and family, away from public space and cameras, but also with myself. What thoughts come to mind, what are the plans to build all of this into account morality. But not required for the evaluation of the individual in society. Funny, isn't it? 8)
Hello wrote:
...itit bash, morality must be fulfilled for its own sake? let though all burns with a blue flame, let the world collapses, let people die, let them - the main thing to observe morality, even if for the sake of this world, not even for the sake of saving the life of even one man necessary to make B E h N R A In s T In E n N S Y thing...
The highest morality is precisely this, all right ;] Saint cannot commit an immoral act for any reason period. Made - not a Saint. What the world, and such people (or Vice versa) =]
Hello wrote:
and maybe hang a crippled beggar, who with hunger stole a piece of bread?...
To exaggerate and outright nonsense may not be worth it? )
Self-Murderer wrote:
We will remind, since when does morality or morality - synonyms something definitely good from the perspective of humanity as a whole, not the value system of the individual/society, which may depend on a huge range of factors.
There are several points of view on the question about the source of morality from a single individual. Philosophy, in short ) My version: the ability to give a moral evaluation comes from the soul: what the soul is, and such estimates, that is the borderline, the framework within which man operates. For example, YOU would see that the machine is a bit half-opened door, and there inside is laptop. Would you want him? Something that is easy to carry off, to steal. Or somebody else's phone is lying on a Park bench, next to no one: your actions? I'll pass over.
Now, by answering these questions (examples) tell me what you were guided, making decision (to take or not to take someone else's)? Answering the question what, think again: whether so it? Because we all have feelings, and moral evaluation of *your* own act, too, just not all worried with introspection )) It's about the individual. The society has its basis, adopted by all morality. That is, there is the possibility of mismatch of conventional morality and your personal ethics that comes from the heart. Ideally, in my opinion, the society should consist of people with the same principles, with the same evaluation of any of the events from the point of view of morality, and this assessment must not conflict with the personal morality of the society.

A. Soldier of Light
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
To exaggerate and outright nonsense may not be worth it? )
also want to try on a suit of a woodpecker?
Spoilersthis in line for stalkerami.Soldier of Light wrote:
The highest morality is precisely this, all right ;] Saint cannot commit an immoral act for any reason period. Made - not a Saint.
X E R N I, not having any relation to real life. besides, it was not about the saints, and the most that neither is mortal of ordinary flesh and blood people.
Spoilery to read then do you know how close to the end, something besides his scribbling?

A. Soldier of Light wrote:
My version: the ability to give a moral evaluation comes from the heart
A. Soldier of Light, agree with You. And here's why. What is evil? This destruction. And welcome this creation. It is nice to see, and what is unpleasant? Budding rose to see better than rotting flesh. And notice it's inherent from birth, regardless of the fact that investing in human parents and society.
So morality, good, inherent in the person initially.

Nonsense. People became the most terrible is those that know how to cooperate with other such as he. And people by nature will always stray into the flock, tribe, community, country, state, nation.

Hello
Hello wrote:
real life
Let's either no abstractions or explanations.
A. Soldier of Light
A. Soldier of Light wrote:
The highest morality is precisely this, all right ;] Saint cannot commit an immoral act for any reason period.
Actually not quite true. Repentance, that's what you need, because human nature is poisoned with sin, and sin really can be only one God. Higher morale and higher, that she is from the Kingdom of Heaven and belong rather to the sphere proper, not things. But again - you have this moral imperative is categorical. No matter what you want or can, you should.
stalker7162534
stalker7162534 wrote:
What is evil? This destruction. And welcome this creation. It is nice to see, and what is unpleasant? Budding rose to see better than rotting flesh.
We can agree with the caveat that nice is not always identical to good.
stalker7162534 wrote:
So morality, good, inherent in the person initially.
God has laid down, of course. But at the same time we are poisoned by sin.