Posts by Brenda Cook4

Here's link to the open thread, where the opening post says:

little mariana
Prayers and devotions
As a Catholic, I feel it's my duty to share prayers and devotions, so...
Please don't reply if you're just looking to criticize, judge, or mock us. There are other sections on the forum for that. If you want to pray, go ahead; if you don't, that's fine too. Just let those of us who pray be at peace.

Following that, it's nothing but Catholic prayers, which makes it pretty obvious that starting a topic like this doesn't really fit a forum—it belongs on a personal blog. A forum is meant to be a space for discussing specific topics.

You’d honestly think that just copying and pasting the thread creation rules would be enough to show why something got nuked, right?🙄
But this wasn't even about a discussion thread; it was just someone spamming endless, repetitive prayers.

Mark Torres14 said:If honesty is just some byproduct of culture and civilization, then yeah, your example is overkill. In those scenarios, primal instincts take over and we're basically powerless. Talking about "honesty" in that context would be absurd.
But, if we agree with steelridge58 that honesty isn't just cultural baggage—that there's also this deep, transcendent spark we're born with or have a predisposition toward—then your example is actually spot on for defining what honesty really is.
My take? Honesty doesn't start with the individual. It’s a learned way of valuing ourselves and everyone else. It's a product of our society and civilization.
If there were even a shred of truth to what steelridge58 and Edward Flores4 are claiming, we should see the seeds of honesty in nature. We should see more complex animals acting in ways that align with our basic idea of being honest. But they don't. Every single time you could potentially spot a hint of honesty in the wild, it's just pure instinct taking over.

So, you and I are actually on the same page here... and if you look closely at what steelridge58 said (which is exactly what I asked her to clarify), you'll see she's making the same point. That's why the example fails. We aren't gods; we're human beings. We have to speak in human terms.

steelridge58 said:I suppose it would be that core part of us that isn't just a collection of forced behaviors—or at least, it's the version where those imposed habits take a backseat to everything we actually build within ourselves as we grow up and navigate life. It’s about what we develop through genuine learning, much like that hiker mentioned earlier; if you don't have the right support system along the way, trying to learn things can become such an uphill battle, leading to painful mistakes or even totally wrong conclusions simply because you were left to figure it out without any real guidance or mentors.

And I honestly think that as we get older, we basically start the process of raising ourselves, which makes sense because I remember reading somewhere that philosophy is essentially just our way of correcting the upbringing we were handed in the first place.

Oh, I am completely with you on that.

steelridge58 said:🙂

Yeah, I actually left that out yesterday because I thought I might get a chance to circle back later, but if we’re being honest—and at least it feels honest to me—I think honesty is probably the closest thing we have to respect. They feel almost inseparable, maybe even sharing the same roots deep down.

When you look at this through the lens of reading, learning, and actual knowledge, I think it does a great job of explaining that distinction I was trying to make between just following social etiquette—you know, just acting in a way that’s socially acceptable to fit in—and behaving based on deeply held values that stem from fundamental human principles, where what's right or wrong comes from the very core of who a person is, depending on the situation.

That said, I really do believe there are certain inherent predispositions we're born with... and I wonder if all humans enter this world with the same baseline character traits, especially when you consider how much our genetics shape us. To me, honesty seems inextricably linked to sincerity as a personality trait, and to conscience—that inner voice, that quiet realization within ourselves, knowing better than we often do...

So, what would you say constitutes the "essence of being" when it comes to patterns of behavior?

Mark Torres14 said:No. If honesty comes from a person’s internal moral compass, then regardless of how crazy or absurd a situation gets, that integrity shows through in how they act. In my specific example, an honest person wouldn't be able to go against their own nature—they’d step up and tell the soldier he made a mistake.
But if "honesty" is just some social contract based on external relationships, then in the extreme scenario I described, it can't—and shouldn't—be called honesty. If a person steps forward to tell the soldier he's wrong in that moment, they aren't being "honest" to society; they're just agreeing with the insane, irrational logic of shooting someone. At that point, you're not talking about a man of integrity anymore; you're talking about a lunatic.

I don't think your example really hit the mark... it feels a bit over the top to me (not to mention the whole survival instinct factor in your scenario). The way it's framed makes it seem like "honesty" itself is somehow flawed. Like I said before, we shouldn't overthink this or talk about honesty as if it’s some divine law written in the stars. It’s all just evolution—first biological, then social, and so on...

Mark Torres14 said:The point I was making wasn't even about that, but fine, let's play it your way.
Look at this scenario.

You're a prisoner in Auschwitz and one day they start selling everything off and announce, "We're executing every second person now." And... they start doing it. The line moves up, and you realize you're actually next in line to be shot instead of the guy standing right beside you. But then, the guard makes a mistake and pulls your buddy out of line instead.
Are you really going to step forward and tell that guard, "Hey, that's not fair, I'm actually the one supposed to die here."

So, when we take the concept of "fairness" and push it to these absurd extremes, it becomes impossible to maintain. At that point, the distinction between being fair and being unfair just becomes completely meaningless... it all just turns into nothing.

Sam Green73 said:Is it actually fair to just sit there and do nothing when someone else plays dirty?

Look, reacting would definitely be the better move. But honestly, if everyone just operated with a bit of integrity—treating honesty as the default setting rather than an extra effort—we wouldn't have to spend our time reporting anyone in the first place.

Sam Green73 said:Maybe we should actually sit down and break down what we mean when we use the word honest?
Here are two different scenarios to chew on:
1. You’re walking through a Target and happen to see someone slip an item into their pocket without paying, so you go ahead and alert a store employee.

2. You find out your boss is embezzling funds from the company. The problem is, the head of internal audit is his best friend.

In that second situation, what does being "honest" actually look like?

2. I’m not reporting it to the auditor; I’m just going to mind my own business and move on.
..even though, strictly speaking, when this thread talks about honesty, I tend to view it more as a matter of personal conduct—you know, things like not stealing from a shop, not skimming off the top of the company books, or simply not abusing your position of power...

Nicole Nelson77 said:Honestly, it’s just strange how people work...

When there's someone to tear down, people will churn out hundreds of posts on a single thread, racking up tens of thousands of views. But when someone actually deserves a bit of credit? They go completely unnoticed, along with their entire discussion...

Take certain individuals, for instance. They manage to climb the ladder in their "online" careers, despite having shown a complete lack of self-respect—or respect for the moderators—through their behavior and posts. And then there's the senseless banning, which personally gets under my skin, though I couldn't quite say why...

I suppose, and I'm fairly certain of this, that all sorts of insecure types find a way to express themselves in this digital world. It's why I don't even care for big tennis... because I can't trip anyone up fairly, or shove an opponent, or hit them...

Well, within the rules of the sport, at least...

Everything here seems to be bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, far below any decent level of human communication...

All I need now is to open accounts on Facebook and Twitter ☕

After that, I won't even need a gun to end it all...

With that one act, I'll have already finished everything...

I am jumping in right now to back that praise for @Gary James88... Honestly, I mostly know him from those deep philosophy debates on Reddit, but he's such an incredibly sharp and informed conversationalist that I have full faith he'll be a fantastic moderator too.

Donna Wood52 said:Oh, absolutely. I remember this one school counselor back when I was in high school—I’d go to her with a genuine problem, and she’d just shrug and tell me, "Everyone deals with that." It felt like I had gone to some random lady at a flea market for advice instead of a professional, and honestly, she probably would have given better guidance. 👍

And don't even get me started on the sudden rush toward psychology lately; it seems like people just crave that sense of power over others.

That kind of dynamic requires two sides: those who crave that control, and those who are all too willing to hand it over...

Anyone who realizes that doctors aren't gods finds things much easier to handle... and frankly, it makes life a lot easier for the doctors, too.

Honestly, it’s just like telling the truth. You don't have to play mental gymnastics to remember your own lies, you don't need some elaborate master plan, and you don't have to constantly worry about keeping your guard up or looking over your shoulder. It’s much more complicated trying to navigate a web of deception than just being straight with people. Being honest is simply easier.

Ronald Rogers27 said:Permanent happiness doesn't exist. What actually exists is peace... lasting peace. Very few people ever find it while they're alive, but everyone finds it eventually when they die.

Ronald Rogers27

Is there anything more powerful than peace? If that isn't 'happiness,' then I honestly don't know what is...

restlessfox5 said:I'm not really looking to dwell on the accident. I mean, stuff like that happens to anyone—it's just life—but still...

Personally, I *do* care about the accident, especially when it looks more like a pattern of behavior on the road—kind of like what happened with Kennedy. And honestly? It should matter. But this is the way things work in the States lately; it feels like every single day we see more of it. There’s just no basic common sense or moral integrity left in the driver's seat anymore.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:First off, everything Jesus says demands deep reflection—one must ask if there is a hidden layer of meaning... Jesus raises the dead, like Lazarus for instance, so their state of death poses no obstacle to Him... provided that people themselves don't turn into withered raisins...

Secondly, when I discuss the concept of quasi-labor in today's economy—the very foundation upon which quasi-management and, subsequently, quasi-profits are built—I am not speaking of some vague abstraction I've simply conflated with something else...

Oh, man... it’s happening. It’s that ultimate business model I was telling you about... just living off the "interpretation of hidden meanings"... it’s a racket, honestly. Think about it: no entrepreneur in history has ever pulled this off. No capital investment, no skin in the game, no staff, zero accountability—you just sit there and take. And then, they have the nerve to act like they're teaching the king his own lessons, even though they're standing right there on the same level, always eating from a full plate while everyone else struggles.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:😁
Let’s assume for a moment that being a machinist is a dying breed today—honestly, more of a relic from the past—and I see you as this modern, high-tech woman... so why on earth would you suddenly turn your mind toward manual machining in an era where people are so completely disconnected from tangible products—the age of 😁
?

Yeah, sure...to me, it looks like pure creativity, like taking one thing and reshaping it into something entirely new.😁 I've always had a soft spot for hands-on skills... I could probably get behind being a carpenter too.😍

Jonathan Brooks8 said:No, I’m not trying to sell you anything—nor am I insisting that I'm necessarily right—I am simply pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding of how this work actually functions... (and I have to admit, being compared to a machinist as an example of my professional output gave me a good laugh)...

"Misunderstanding labor"🤷...I don't think anyone is "selling" anything here, for that matter. It feels more like we're just having a conversation...

...but what's the deal with this lathe operator😁? Is he actually working his own machine? Because if he isn't, then is all that grease and grime on him really considered "labor," or what?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Because that’s exactly how it’s categorized—and therein lies the fundamental issue—given that BB has finally, albeit grudgingly, admitted it. In doing so, she has effectively branded herself an anti-Marxist; after all, these speculators are essentially manipulating the very surplus value that Marx identified—that specific portion of capital that isn't distributed to those who actually earned it.

We could go on forever listing examples of such "legitimate" labor—take the pharmaceutical industry, which relies entirely on the persistence of disease... or the banking sector, which thrives solely on the demand for credit... or even marketing agencies that exist just to manufacture artificial demand for things nobody actually needs... and so on.

Geez, talk about a spin job🤷

Jonathan Brooks8 said:He’s only considered an anarchist by those who still cling to being part of the establishment... because to truly be an anarchist, one has to operate from within the system itself.
In other words, someone calling themselves an anarchist is actually working inside the machine—tearing it down using its own tools, rather than utilizing methods that exist entirely outside its reach.

Now, Jesus operates entirely outside of the system; he can't even call himself an anarchist, since he isn't even concerned with the status quo—to him, that whole structure is just a world of "living dead."

Consequently, following Jesus's path doesn't necessarily mean you're an anarchist. If you are walking that path, it’s simply the way... but if you aren't, then perhaps you could call it anarchic....

'Outside the system'? Honestly, He's just breaking what's already there...but He wants His truth to be the only one that lasts. In the end, He kicks so many people out of the circle with that elitism...the idea that 'many are called, but few are chosen.' What, is all we're supposed to say is, 'I believe in God and Jesus Christ,' and that's it?

, that whole structure is just a world of "living dead."

Can someone with that kind of mindset actually show compassion... to people... to the planet... to animals... to anyone or anything at all?

"Peoples earth with demons, hell with men,
And heaven with slaves."
Shelley

Jonathan Brooks8 said:You’re really going in circles here... would you honestly advise every priest out there to just quit their "day jobs" and pivot to day trading stocks—since that’s apparently what you consider actual work?

Where exactly am I burning out? Look at how you framed that question—you've painted the stock market as some kind of "demonic" entity and nothing else...

Like I said before, managing investments is legitimate work... so, yeah...