Well, nobody is forcing you to reply to me! You've been nothing but hateful and angry ever since a few pages back. Basically, you've been insulting me for not sharing your world-view; you've portrayed me as a heartless cold emotion-less being just because I'm not high on "magic" and "spirit". And now your saying *my* posts aren't a "picnic"?!David S. wrote:I really wish you would, because replying to YOU is no picnic for me, either! And I really don't have much time for this right now.
I've always enjoyed your posts and have always liked you. You know that, as we've exchanged more than a couple PMs. But if you want to change all that because I don't want to indulge in your childish fantasies, that's fine with me, pal! Just say so and I won't bother you anymore!
And I feel sad for you that you can't face the world through the eyes of a grown-up, which you are *supposed* to be, but instead chooses to deny it by pretending you're still a pre-teen.David S. wrote:If so, and if you can't understand, and FEEL, the SPIRIT of that editorial (one of the most beautiful things I've ever read), then yes, I would feel you are cynical, and truly feel sad for you.
'Santa Claus' is an Americanized rip-off from the Dutch Saint Nicholas and it only represents Coca Cola and other forms of commercialism, which has gone way overboard the past few decades and has trumped the original meaning of Christmas.David S. wrote:It isn't as much about whether Santa is literally an old man with a white beard who lives at the North Pole, as much as it is about the SPIRIT of what he represents. And yes, I believe that spirit is real, and therefore, I believe in Santa Claus.
I *LOVE* Mary Poppins! That's one of my favorite Disney-movies! Surprised you there, didn't I? See? I am not as black-and-white as you paint me. I'm into Disney because of everything you just summed up. I love that about Disney. But that doesn't mean I have to feel that way all the time! There are moments when I choose to, when I put on a Disney movie. But whenever I'm not watching them, I prefer to see the world a whole lot more realistically. Because the world is not a movie, and certainly not a Disney-movie! Disney is fiction, nothing more, nothing less. What it presents isn't real and will never be real.David S. wrote:If you don't agree with a word of that editorial, it really seems odd to me that you are into Disney. SO many of the iconic Disney movies, and the theme parks, have a recurring theme of innocence, magic, wonder - getting in touch with your inner child, and of believing in things that can't be seen or proven. The ability "to see past the end of your nose" as it was put in Mary Poppins.
Yes, David, that's what you see on the news, because it is *happening*. It is there and it's real. And that's only a very, very tiny portion of all the evil, depressing things going on in the world. And it's not going to go away by simply putting your fingers in your ears and singing "nanananana", like you seem to do. What you're saying about "staying a child" and all that stuff, is just hiding from reality. It's playing a game. And how ironic that you would say *I'm* "a slave" to anything. Aren't *you* the one who's hooked on a drug called 'fantasy'? You basically just admitted you're indulging in child-like fantasies, because reality "brings you down". So you pretend it's not happening. That's make-belief.David S. wrote:And the way you are makes you cynical and a slave to it. But it is ridiculous to say that anyone who wants to stay in touch with their Inner Child and sense of wonder is "naive" and "out of touch". And I'm not as "naive" as you think. Believe me, I've been exposed to all that "realistic' stuff, and it bores me to no end, and brings me down. In fact, the things "adults" consider "realistic" is a *distortion* of reality, heavily biased towards the negative. Just watch the evening news. All it is, is an endless litany of negativity. Murders, shooting, robberies....
That's certainly true, but "news" is only news when it deviates from the ordinary. Hence why positive news is no news at all.David S. wrote: To truly be "realistic", the news would have to dwell on the positive as much as (or more) than the negative. Because not everyone's life is actually as negative as the news would have you believe.
I happen to completely agree with that philosophy, but I don't think that's neccesarily a positive thing. It's just a fact that nobody can give your life any meaning besides you.David S. wrote:I am more existential in my philosophy. Existentialism essentially states that "life has no meaning other than the meaning given to it by the individual". Some people look at the first half of that sentence as a nihilistic philosophy, but the second half is what empowers it and makes it VERY positive.
Now that's not true. It's simply not factual. Reailty is not "in the eye of the beholder". Reality is what's actually happening. So when you choose to not look at reality and to pretend it doesn't exist by pretending your still a "child", that doesn't mean reality *is* that way. You've simply shut it out, that's all.David S. wrote:Meaning, "Reality" is RELATIVE to the eyes of the individual. You choose to live in a world where you are constantly aware of the grime in the world, and I choose to live in a world that TRANSCENDS it.
Sounds like fun; let me try it. I will post the result here.David S. wrote:I didn't mean that people couldn't be in touch with both. I was referring to an earlier post (which you may not have seen, because I added this part in later) where I referred to the Myers/Briggs personality test, which I enjoy taking for fun, from time to time.
I don't even mind that we see things differently! Remember that this whole melodramatic 'fight' (which we *both* engaged in) started when I simply asked you why you think less of a movie when it has a sad ending, and I stated my own opinion on the subject. That's all. I never asked you to "defend" yourself. I explicitly told you so.David S. wrote:So that's all I meant by pitting one against the other. I was just trying to give you some perspective on how I am naturally inclined to look at things. And that might explain why we see things very differently.
I left nothing out deliberatly. It's one thing to give a speech supposedly in defense of facts, but when you don't *act* upon them, you're being a hypocrite. Reagan could sell incredible lies and inaccurate or false statements without batting an eye (maybe because he was used to it from his actor days). So it strikes me as very hypocritical of him to abuse one of the Founding Fathers like that.David S. wrote:Actually, I looked it up. Apparently he was referencing John Adams' quote " Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence", which is actually in DEFENSE of facts, and he simply got confused and misplaced "stubborn" with "pesky". Although if this is the case and IF you were aware of it, I'm not surprised you left this part out, given your politics. I'm not a conservative or Republican by any means, but if you are going to praise "facts" so much, please at least get them straight!
No, not *everything* is political with me, but your attitude toward it *does* affect other people. Or are you going to deny that? Again, I'm not singeling you out, because millions of people share your view that "politics is boring", and each of them is at least partly responsible for what goes wrong in politics. And politics *does* affect people's lives. Just look how nervous disneyboy20012 has been the past couple of weeks because of the debt ceiling negotiations. Because if no agreement is reached, the US will default and that will *directly* impact him. And maybe some of the extremist, crazy nut-bags who *want* to see the US default wouldn't have been in Congress in the first place if more people had actually paid a little more attention to politics!David S. wrote:Ah, EVERYTHING is political for you, isn't it. I am not harming ANYONE by not regularly following political topics I don't enjoy. [...] And I am NOT "harming" others simply by inaction, and mirroring the natural state of an object at rest to remain at rest, and exercising my own natural right to do so.
No, it isn't, not even remotely.David S. wrote:I could turn that around on you and say that if you buy a DVD tomorrow, or simply do nothing with your leisure money, you are "harming" the poor by not giving them that money instead, since it would have helped them and you didn't need it for a "neccessity". Of course, I don't believe that, but it's the same kind of logic you are using.
I commend you for that! That's a very noble thing to do! My compliments gon out to you!David S. wrote:I certainly feel like I contribute more good to the world than "harm", through voluntary charitable donations and such.
It's better to be involved than to be apathethic. Look at Bill Maher: he was a libertarian 10 years ago, and now he's strongly in favor of socialistic government measures!David S. wrote:And who says I'm not "informed"? I am in many ways apolitical, but I do pick up enough here and there to know that I don't care for either major party, except perhaps the third party Libertarians, which you dislike because they aren't socialist. So you probably wouldn't want me getting involved in politics!
Now, now... who says I do that? You seem to have a very selective view of me.David S. wrote:And again, the political scene BORES me and brings me down. It's a drag, man. Too much negative energy. It's not that I don't care, because I do care about certain issues. I just prefer to not DWELL on them in a day-in, day-out basis like you do.
I couldn't care less about other people's interests. I don't care which books you like to read, what music you like to listen to, or what movies you like to watch. But you treat politics like it's just like one of the three categories I just listed; you talk about it like it's a hobby, and it's not. Like I said, it affects people's lives on a daily basis. And it's a shame so many people are too "bored by it to care, while people on the other side of the world are fighting and DYING in the streets to have a say in the way they are governed.David S. wrote:And you are more "thick-skinned" than I am. So instead of criticizing people who are different than you and preaching how they should care about your beloved politics, why not accept that not all people have the same interests and temperaments.
I feel bad you don't want to discuss things with me publicly ever again. As you know (and I've stated it above), I've always thought highly of you. Just because we disagree, is no reason to hate each other. And yes, I'm replying in public, because that's where this conversation started. Just like I always apologize in public whenever I did any wrong-doing in public. I just think that's the decent thing to do.David S. wrote:In closing, I leave you with a song (audio below lyric excerpt), and the heartfelt wish to not discuss these things publically with you ever again. (But if you keep replying, I will keep defending/clarifying, and unfortunately, I suspect you'll be back. But if you wish to reply further, I am requesting that you take this to PMs, as it will be more private, and this is also derailing the topic.)