Americans, why do you let this continue?

Take away a shiver and you take away some capacity for an animal to regulate it's temperature.

Take away a complaint and you increase capacity for appreciation.

 

You're still unconcerned about coming across as one who believes that relieving the suffering of another does not reduce misery. Who are you trying to fool?

Also, you pretend to believe that I was asking you about the biologic purpose of shivering. Why did you do that?

Then you said, "Take away a complaint, and you increase capacity for appreciation." Well, shivering is the complaint. But then, you knew that's what I meant.

 

Slightly frustrating isn't it, storch? :smilielol5:

 

Uhhh, I am not responsible for your perceptions. I asked you flat out, are you less miserable and you said no. Are you not sure then because I know you wouldn't be trying to fool anybody.

No, I made no pretense of belief. Why did I point out that shivering is a biological adaptation for regulating body heat? Because you asked me a question, what is the difference between a shiver and a complaint. That is what I use my powers of distinction for, to tell one thing from another.

So shivering is the complaint. Is panting also a complaint?

 

Ask anyone, dope, and they will tell you the context in which I was asking the question concerning the difference between shivering and a complaint. But you don't really have to ask, do you?

So, you were not, as you have just claimed, using your powers of distinction to tell one thing from another; you were trying to divert attention away from the actual context in which my words were presented.

For all that perception, how is it that you are so unaware of your own transparent attempt to change context for advantage sake?

You asked if I was less miserable. I said that I am not less miserable; I am more gratified. Again, you pretend to not know what I meant even after my comment to you about you seeing the glass half empty when it came to the question of being less miserable or not.

 

I am not asking anyone storch, I am speaking with you. You are mistaken to suggest that I am trying to deflect/divert attention from the actual context.
My position is, from your moralistic position you can't see what the actual content is. I told you I have no metric for measuring degrees of suffering.
Not everyone shares your idea of morality and if they don't you would suggest they are degenerate?

Again storch, no pretense here. I am not representing you, I ask for your representation. It is not a matter of seeing a glass as half full or half empty,
I am not measuring a glass containing disparate qualities, perhaps you are.

If you can't report that you have reduced your own suffering, how can you claim to have done so for others? Obtaining a feeling that you have helped the world go your way is just as soon replaced by the feeling that you are in contention.

Isn't it?

 

I did not say that those who don't share my views on the virtues of kindness are degenerate. You remind me so much of someone whom, upon hearing that I no longer eat meat, assume that I believe them to be barbarians or something.

You injected the term "less miserable" into the discussion. I said that I am not less miserable; I am more gratified. You are hanging your face on the hope that I will believe that you thought I was not clarifying that I am not less anything, but more something.

I did not obtain a feeling that I helped the world go my way. The dogs obtained a feeling of warmth when it counts.

 

Odon, if I answer yes to your question, he will condemn me for being frustrated due it being a matter of perception or something like that.

 

I have a feeling we might find out.

 

If you would notice storch, there was a question mark after the word degenerate. The reason I ask is there must be some reason that you found 50 dogs in need of additional protection from the elements. Why the appearance of such need?

I first asked if you thought you saved the world some misery. Then you asked me, If I thought you saved the world some misery. I went on to say that I have no metric for measuring suffering and asked you if you were less miserable. If I asked the dogs if they were less miserable I'm sure they wouldn't know what I was talking about. If I asked the dogs what torture was, they wouldn't know what I was talking about. I don't know what hanging my face on the hope means, but the fact that you are more gratified doesn't indicate to me that you had reduced suffering.

You misread me and the thrust of my discourse. It is not to discredit you but to expose hidden barriers we have erected against the perception of love. Everyone can create temporary conditions for themselves and we share those conditions with those around us. Some may accept your conditions, some may not. Our lives are a series of sensations, one followed by the other, some of which we call pleasant and some not so. This is true no matter if you are a prince or a pauper.

And of course that is contrary to your wishes. I know you think your complaint exists somewhere outside of you.

 

If I had a nickel for every time someone tried hiding behind a punctuation mark to prove that they didn't mean what they said, I'd be a nickel richer today.

You asked if I saved the world some misery. Why did you ask that if you aready know the answer?

I don't complain. I act. When you want something to be so, you first think it, then you state it, then you act. Which part of that process are you complaining about now?

Such need of protection from the cold is due to the fact that people have dogs and they don't know what they're for. Other than that, all I can say is that they lack enough empathy to see to the needs of those in their charge. Their minds are elsewhere.

 

If your living depended on Identifying the contents of my mind, you would lose your nickle. The question mark means i look for an answer, doesn't mean I am providing one. We already went over this.

.

Now, by your terms I am going to hide behind the fact that I asked you if you thought you saved the world some misery. You didn't answer the question directly, so how could I possibly know the answer before hand? If I am supposed to be guessing what you mean, why do I need your responses?

See below

And here it is in living color. For you to be the superhero there must be a villain.

What is the fact about the care of these animals by their owners?
Doesn't the fact that they have living pets mean that they must have enough empathy to care for their pets needs? The fact is they don't overtly demonstrate to you the care you think the animals should be accustomed to.
On that basis you determine they lack enough empathy. Perception is not knowledge. The world is not fucked, our apprehension of it certainly can be.

Your relationship with the animals I have already acknowledged as being good.
Your relationships with men suffer because you find them villainous, That is why you find yourself up in arms. How could reality possibly offend?

 

I will paint the picture for you. You pretend, still, that you don't understand what I meant when I said that I am not less anything for my action, but rather more something--not less miserable, but more gratified. But pretend on if it serves your momentary needs.

Let me clear up another issue you are pretending to not understand. You ask a question; in this case, you asked me why there was a need for such protection from the cold. I gave you an answer based on my experience with what I see. A short-haired dog in a wood box without ample straw in freezing weather tells me that the reason is the owners don't know what the dog is for. It also tells me that they lacked enough empathy to see to the needs of those in their charge--that their mind was elsewhere.

Your question was somewhat of an obvious set-up. You knew full well that the answer to the question of the cause of neglect would center on those in charge of the neglected. Then you bring out your theory that I see myself a hero thwarting the big bad villian. Well, my friend, I saw you coming down the road with that one. If I had answered that the reason for the neglect was that the owners know what their dog is for, and because they have adequate empathy toward the creature in their charge, you and everyone else would say that that's just crazy thinking.

As far as the second part of your post, you go to a lot of effort to be able to acceptably hang your face on the word "thought." Give that some thought!

 

Why is it important for you to see me as pretending I don't understand what you are saying? Because you don't like the content of what I am saying? Please note that there is a question mark at the end of the previous sentence.

Again, the only one offering pretense is you. Let me clear up for you that I understand what you tell me and I am not an any sense pretending that I don't. You did not give me your answer based on experience, your answer is based on your moral sentiments. A short haired dog in a wooden box without straw in freezing weather makes you come to conclusions about the mental and emotional state of it's owner. Not dude. You are projecting, not from a wide sampling of dog owners but from your own moral sensitivities.

How about if you had simply answered, I was concerned for the dog/dogs, not sure how one dog translates to fifty but at any rate, without the additional there was ignorance and lack of sufficient empathy from the owners?

I don't know the specific circumstances of what you did and who it was you made do their jobs. I bet you don't know the specific circumstances of all the owners of said fifty dogs. But, you saw my question was a setup and you thought to answer the way you did because if you had answered differently then people would think it crazy thinking. I think that is crazy thinking. My question was offered that you give a response to it, that is all.

I am not privy to how you have divided my post.
I only suggest you offer analysis for things I did not say. Your points are moot from the outset because you are responding to your own inner thought associations instead of what I am saying. You have spent some time telling me that I am pretending not to understand you. Simply is not the case. You wouldn't feel defensive if you hadn't first attacked the integrity of those owners in your mind. Now this statement is not meant to be critical of you but it explains the dynamic of your projections about my purposes. If you attack you will feel attacked even though you may not in fact, be attacked. I don't take it personally.

 

Dope, you have a sensitivity to the word "ignorance." Did you know that to ignore the needs of those in your charge is negligence? What evil or vodoo have you attached to these words. All they do is describe an action, or sometimes inaction.

Sorry to have to tell you this, but you've over-thought things again. A good rule of thumb for realizing when this has happened to you is when you become defensive and find yourself in a battle to create a villian out of someone who saw a need and filled it.

 

Bad form, dope. Bad form . . .

 

• 
  Of course it is storch.
  Now let's look again at the word degenerate.
  
  become worse: to develop into a condition that is worse than before, worse than normal, or not as good as it should be
  
  Not as good as it should be equals, not enough empathy. Not enough empathy equals, degenerate.
  
  You didn't appreciate my use of the word degenerate before, saying I reminded you of such. Now who is it that has a special sensitivity for a word?
  
  If you are paying attention, we are uncovering hidden attitudes that put you in antipathy with your neighbor. Bad form storch? Try comprehending what I am saying to you.

 

I love reducing you to a grammar nazi type, hunting down definitions in hopes that you can make a point or refute a point simply by pointing out that a word has synonyms. All you've pointed out is that you don't understand that that is not a point.

Not enough empathy means not enough empathy. What do you make of that?I am only someone who has filled a need. Where there is only that, you see fit to fill that moment with all of your analytical illusion. Dope, all that's happened is that some dogs will be warm. What do you make of that?

And you seem a little edgy. Could that be because your philosophical take on things here were found to be quite unsound when standing next to an act of kindness. That would make me edgy. Just sayin'.

 

Of course you do, we must condemn in order to justify our unwillingness to forgive. What point do you think I am making?

I make of it a subjective statement, twice stated.

Is it needed that you suggest people are degenerate?

Obviously there is not only that, but somehow it is not evident to you.

Again, "Your relationship with the animals I have already acknowledged as being good."

I think it more likely it appears to you that way because that is the way you would like me to respond.
The fact is your acts of kindness are limited by your narrative about the dog owners. Like I said, a feeling of accomplishment, (yours), is soon replaced a feeling of contention. This is always the case when you conceive yourself in a battle against villainy. Sometimes you win, some times you loose.
Sometimes you think you are making headway and sometimes it seems that you are misconstrued. All the while you are shadow boxing with your own complaints. Not in the sense that you helped dogs be warm, but in the sense
that you suggest I am less than honest, or that dog owners haven't enough empathy for the cause.

 

Well, I didn't really reduce you to a grammar natzi. I just pointed it out.

And here you go again. You infer that I suggest that people are degenerate. I did not suggest it. Remember? I called you on going on a word and term hunt to justify you saying that I must be suggesting that they are degenerate. What you are doing now is looking for a way to come out of this in a way that will satisfy your ego.

Here, I'll remind you of what you did. You asked me why the dogs were cold. Obviously, you weren't expecting me to say it is because the temperatures are really low; that's just too obvious. So, I told you what I saw as the reason. The owners lacked enough empathy to see to their cold weather needs. I said that their minds were elsewhere. You believe that I imply that they are degenerate. I didn't say it; you did. You can sit there and say, "Ah ha! Saying someone lacks empathy is to suggest that they are a degenerate." But that will only be true in your own mind.

You judge my actions to be a judgement against the owners of those dogs. Forgive me if I judge that to be highly ironic. You are so bent on shining here that you would not condider that my actions are for the dogs. Glass half empty?