Zen and the art of misrepresentation

The prior post takes a phrase coined in an alternate context and uses it in a way which blatantly misrepresents both the original meaning and myself, being the person who used the phrase.

In the original context I wrote ‘I’ve expressed my societal preference’. It referred, using a different phrasing, to a prior comment; ‘I know what society we have all chosen to live in, though we are adults and free to leave should we wish… ‘. In context, this meant a preference for one society over another, i.e. having looked around, we have chosen to live in UK society (and accept a ban on gun ownership, for example) rather than US society (where I would have the right to bear arms).

Irdial has also expressed the same societal preference in choosing to live in the UK. By extension, Irdial has forgone the right to bear arms. That is a societal preference, that is my meaning. Therefore I could imply, out of context, that Irdial obviously thinks the right to bear arms disposable, not as valuable as other aspects or rights within the respective US and UK societies, and therefore any comments supporting that right may be considered hypocritical.
If anyone is unhappy with the society they curently live in, they are free to act to change it or to exert their ‘societal preference’ and choose another.

The implications in the previous post that I meant anything else by ‘societal preference’ are exactly and nothing more than that; implications. The implied personal characteristics associated with the contents of that post, given the repeated referral to ‘societal preference’ and it’s original posting are unjust, unfair and uncalled for.

Advertisements
About

We are the best.

Posted in Bollocks
3 comments on “Zen and the art of misrepresentation
  1. irdial says:

    Like I keep saying; I am perfectly willing and able to disagree about anything. The difference is, my disagreeing and my choices don’t mean or require that anyone has to obey my wishes.

    That is the crucial difference.

  2. Alun says:

    No, that is not ’societal preference’

    I know what I meant. If you wish to appropriate the words and apply your own meaning to the phrase, then fine. It doesn’t make it the same thing.

    What you appear to be talking about are society’s preferences, which have developed over centuries and continue to do so, and how citizens influence those preferences.

    That is certainly not what I was talking about. Just so I’m clear.

  3. irdial says:

    In the original context I wrote ‘I’ve expressed my societal preference’. It referred, using a different phrasing, to a prior comment; ‘I know what society we have all chosen to live in, though we are adults and free to leave should we wish… ‘. In context, this meant a preference for one society over another, i.e. we have chosen to live in UK (and accept a ban on gun ownership) society rather than US society (where I would have the right to bear arms).

    A person’s preference of one society over another has a direct impact on other people. Exsersising that preference, i.e. voting lobbying etc etc has an impact on other people. That is the point, and it is why I was able to use that phrase.

    A person’s ideas about what is right and wrong, and their belief that these should be imposed on everyone are the direct cause of everything that I hate, and that I listed in that post. It is exactly the same thinking (if you can even call it that) as the ‘nothing to hide nothing to fear’ brigade, who also think that they are correct, and infallible.

    If every person who had an idea like ‘all guns should be banned’, ‘all knives should be blunted’ etc etc was allowed to exercise their will on the entire public, then we would all be living in….well, almost like the place that britain is turning into, where everything is illegal.

    The people who mind their own business however, can hold many ideas and these, no matter what they are and if you agree or not with them, will not have any consequence to anyone’s freedom because, we don’t believe we know what is good for other people that is the essential difference, the key difference between people who understand freedom and those who do not.

    Those who believe that they are infallible, that they have all the answers, believe that imposing their will is not an imposition at all, since what they are doing ‘is of benefit to society’. We have seen the results of this type of thinking for literally thousands of years. It results in book burning, genocide, war and all the other atrocious things that have been done in the name of the ‘good of society’.

    Irdial has also expressed the same societal preference in choosing to live in the UK. By extension, Irdial has forgone the right to bear arms. That is a societal preference, that is my meaning.

    No, that is not ‘societal preference’ it is a personal CHOICE which affects only ME. It is completely different to making a decision that takes freedom from other people. That is OBVIOUS. I have not ‘forgone the right to bear arms’ because rights are not something that are bestowed upon you by government. I have said this many times before; rights are something that are born with you, that belong to you that that are an excrescence of your very existence. People who think that laws take away rights don’t understand rights.

    But I digress. Again.

    I can leave the UK at any time and live in (or visit by train) a country where I can shoot as a sport. There is a fundamental difference between making choices that affect only you, and having ideas and ‘societal preferences’ that mean that others have to be subjugated to another person’s will, or the collective will.

    Therefore I could imply, out of context, that Irdial obviously thinks the right to bear arms disposable, not as valuable as other aspects or rights within the respective US and UK societies, and therefore any comments supporting that right may be considered hypocritical.

    I don’t have to put up with anything that I do not choose to, and if I want to shoot, I can go somewhere, and do that. The right to bear arms is not disposable, it is as valuable as any of the other rights you were born with. I CHOOSE to be here now, and I can CHOOSE at any time to leave here, just as many fed up people have; people who are fed up with all the stuff that I said in the last post and everything else.

    If I was a serious sport shooter I would have already left the UK. The fact that I have not means that right now, I don’t need to shoot. It doesn’t meant that I have waived my right to bear arms or anything else for that matter.

    I can live without guns. I can also live without cheese. When they say that certain types of cheese-making is to be banned, it makes me just as mad as when they say that guns should be outlawed. People have the right to make and sell the kind of cheese that they want, and they have the right to make and sell the type of guns that they want. For the people who understand freedom this is completely obvious.

    What I object to, are people who say that day is night and night is day. It doesn’t matter where you are on earth; when the sun is up, it is DAYTIME and when the sun is down, its NIGHTTIME. This is not personal, these are the facts. You cannot be FOR the fascist state, and against it, at the same time. Drinking a thimbleful of strychnine kills as much as gulping down a pint.

    If anyone doesn’t like guns, well, thats fine; but do not say that guns kill people, or guns are the cause of violence or any other nonsense, because that is what it is, utter nonsense, and a lie.

    If anyone is unhappy with the society they curently live in, they are free to act to change it or to exert their ’societal preference’ and choose another.

    Like I said, you can always CHOOSE leave, and that is completely different to ‘societal preference’. Like I said, many gun lovers have left the UK so they can do their thing, so I already agree with that.

    The first act in trying to change something that is wrong is to start to THINK. People who think that Guns are something special are not thinking right, if at all. The gun ban (and in fact, all reactive banning) is a part of the malaise that has taken over this country. In order to stop this rot, we have to start to make people THINK, and that means connecting the dots. Some might think that guns and giving away contraception in schools are not connected, but in fact, they are completely connected.

    What is also so offensive about the anti gun lobby is that they lie about guns, and then use these lies to make free people give them up. Its exactly the same as the lies used to introduce ID cards, or the lies used to send the invaders to Iraq. I am tired of lies, illogic and freedom haters.

    The implications in the previous post that I meant anything else by ’societal preference’ are exactly and nothing more than that; implications. The implied personal characteristics associated with the contents of that post, given the repeated referral to ’societal preference’ and it’s original posting are unjust, unfair and uncalled for.

    What is ‘uncalled for’ is the war on our freedoms. Period.

    Anyone who is FOR the erasure of our freedoms is in the wrong. Anyone who opens the door to the control freaks is in the wrong. If you are FOR the control freaks, and the laundry list that I posted OK, you are entitled to be so and to say so, but you cannot (and I keep saying this again and again) be FOR all the things that you claim to hate, AND be AGAINST the ownership of guns, because all of them spring from the same well.

    Any talk of banning guns should make the freedom lover sick to their stomach; as sick as anything else these idiots get up to.

    The question is, do you want to be free, or not?. Do you want to live in a free country or not?

    If the answer is yes, then you must accept people’s right to own and shoot guns.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: