[kj] OT: Competition?

[The Exorcist]

Who mentioned out of context?

What you had quoted below is me responding to Brendan about MY signature.
I didn't say anything in response to what you had written. :)

I am not a philosophy expert so I usually will 
avoid the discussions. However one thing I do wonder.
Is consistency a good thing or a bad thing?

I can see not being consistent as being open 
minded and allowing further input into a discussion so that
nothing is truly concrete and everything might 
have a different viewpoint or way of shaping itself out.

I can also see it as someone who is wishywashy, 
can't form a coherent thought process and is unsure
of his principles, understanding and ideals. Confused?

The same with being consistent. Someone who is 
stubborn and refuses to budge regardless of what he/she
comes across.

Someone who is well grounded, has proper 
formulations and reaches logical conclusions based on his various
insights into the current topic of discussion.

This can obviously be better written and go into 
more detail. But you get the gist.


Cheers,
Yos

At 01:21 PM 10/21/2008, B. Oliver Sheppard wrote:

>Nietzsche is not one to go to for consistency. 

>He did say "Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich 

>stärker" = "What does not kill me makes me 

>stronger," and espoused, at times, a very 

>hard-hearted selfishness that spat upon 

>socialism and Christianity and two types of herd 

>philosophies that appealed to the weak who were 

>resentful, envious, losers at life, and who 

>clung to them to ruin the successful folks' good time.

>

>Yet he also warned people to avoid the kind of 

>character type he seemed to extol when he said, 

>"Beware those in whom the desire to punish is 

>strong." His writing doesn't form a cohesive 

>system, and I think he was against such things.

>

>Also, the Proudhon quote I used isn't "out of 

>context." Proudhon was a socialist, and was 

>pointing out the irony that when folks compete, 

>someone wins, the other loses, and then ends the 

>competition. On a mass scale, like in business, 

>the losers go out of business, and one is left 

>with monopolies -- according to his ideas. So I 

>wasn't quoting him "out of context" at all. It was an accurate quote.

>

>-Oliver

>

>The Exorcist wrote:

>>Jaaaa, I think we had a few emails discussing 

>>it when I first started using it.

>

>_______________________________________________

>Gathering mailing list

>Gathering at misera.net

>http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering


Competition is a barbaric, insensitive ritual that reeks of social Darwinism.
We cannot allow the fittest to survive on our pages. Your loss is someone
else's gain, and your gain is someone else's loss. Therefore, losers contribute
to the society and winners take away from it. 
Being a winner is unethical, while
a society of losers is happy and striving as a 
collective. In the spirit of diversity,
inclusiveness, and collectivism our contests shall have no winners.
Everyone is declared a loser, which in our book means an ethical team player.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20081021/c4315c00/attachment.htm>