political /pəˈlɪtɪkəl/
ADJECTIVE 1. anything I don't like and which must be therefore banned
—The Snowflake's Dictionary
Forget the train, I'll post a pic of who gets called when something gets 'political':
Men Without Chests
- Thread starter Bengel
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
ADJECTIVE 1. anything I don't like and which must be therefore banned
—The Snowflake's Dictionary
Forget the train, I'll post a pic of who gets called when something gets 'political':
It was a sarcastic statement. I should have realized that doesn't translate well.
Actually, If that does bother the strong.. they might just do what is considered the honorable thing, and become weak... then the weak are really in trouble.
This whole discussion just makes me think of this:
Thought you were gonna say it was resting on his chest, embers. ?It's on a ladder.
I was assuming it would be "Giraffes without necks".
Nah, llamas are camels without humps ?
I think you make several good points in your posts. However:
The weak don't have the burden of responsibility?
That's wrong on so many levels. I'm not really sure who these weak people are, that you speak of, but I'm sure they feel some "burden of responsibility.
Strong vs. weak is an ugly way to categorize people IMO.
I'm sure your thoughts are not as bad as the ones I get from reading stuff like that, but I'm pointing it out anyway.
I assume compassion would also make the list of positive character traits according to Lewis.
Compassion is a trait I believe strong men have . ?
Why would you assume otherwise?
strong = not compassionate?
I don't think anyone here has been referring to physical characteristics.
The weak minded, not the physically weak, have opted out of all responsiblity. So no, It doesn't burden them. IMO
Yeah, he makes good points, hence my quoting him was a continuation of said points, not taking shots at him.
It's not ugly, really, unless we want to make it so through a might-makes-right worldview.
That some are stronger than others is just a fact of life and not something that needs to be done away or combated through procrustean egalitarian delusions. The relationship between weak and strong is best dealt with by the old chivalry code in which the strong has an obligation to protect the weak, and in turn the weak must be grateful to the strong.
Oh lord. I'm sorry, but C. S. Lewis in this instance is a pretentious windbag.
It doesn't take a genius or a hero, or someone following one of many speciously made up ideologies, (collect the entire worthless set).
Just be honest about what's going on inside yourself and take responsibility for it. Add to that, open your ears, and your mind, and listen to other points of view. You might just learn something useful. Have questions and look for vetted answers. If you shit your bed, clean it up. There. Done.
It doesn't take a genius or a hero, or someone following one of many speciously made up ideologies, (collect the entire worthless set).
Just be honest about what's going on inside yourself and take responsibility for it. Add to that, open your ears, and your mind, and listen to other points of view. You might just learn something useful. Have questions and look for vetted answers. If you shit your bed, clean it up. There. Done.
“Be pitiful, for every man is fighting a hard battle.” Ian Maclaren (John Watson)
Most people do not wear their stories on their sleeves. I think it is best not to judge strangers (or anyone for that matter) because we almost never know what their story is.
Most people do not wear their stories on their sleeves. I think it is best not to judge strangers (or anyone for that matter) because we almost never know what their story is.
I understood what you meant. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion on a forum like this. I think I disagree with you, but I'm really not sure. It depends on how you define weak and who.
I'm not asking you to do it, unless you want to please warren and embers, we don't have to agree on this.
Now everyone just has to agree on what constitutes proper "vetting".
Good luck with that.
How about those Dodgers?
I see. In theory that might work. In reality, "The Strong" aren't always the best shepherds.
- Status