It has been fashionable in recent years to portray one or another person as dangerous. The correct response is that nothing is more dangerous to liberty or democracy than that kind of thinking. Which means that it is not only the right, but the duty, of people who hold liberty dear to be dangerous to those who think in such terms. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, they would have seen him as dangerous. If William Blake were alive today, they would have seen him as dangerous. If Nikola Tesla had been alive today, they would have seen him as dangerous. They saw John Lennon as dangerous as well. The world in general – and America in particular – owes everything that it has to bold, innovative thinkers (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/credibility-and-originality) such as the preceding. Do not claim that you are protecting your society when you are destroying what made it great or even possible at all. Hurricane Carter was regarded since childhood as a dangerous person. That is because he was a black person who was not a loser and refused to be treated as one. The people who are most seen as dangerous are people who are not a part of the in-group, but have strengthening qualities. They are seen as dangerous for a very good reason. They are refutation, by counter-example, of the in-group's claim that they are the only smart, or successful, or good people in the world. If you believe that women are stupid, you will see a smart woman as dangerous. You would say that she is arrogant, manipulative or sociopathic. If you believe that you and yours own success or prosperity, you would see someone who's not a part of your club but achieves success or prosperity as dangerous. And further along the same lines. In all such cases the person is seen as dangerous because the person constitutes a refutation of one's false worldview. I once read an analysis of the Holocaust in which the author stated that the Nazis tried to convince the Jews that they were dirt and were worthy of extermination, and that the Jews who survived were ones who decided, Why should I listen to pigs like you? Now calling people pigs is not exactly Christian behavior; but there are many people who have been doing very wrong things. That includes the followers of political correctness (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/refuting-political-correctness) as well as the self-proclaimed men's rights people (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/kicking-iago-in-the-teeth). That includes the Holocaust deniers (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/holocaust-revisionism-and-nazism) and the global warming deniers (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/addressing-deniers-of-global-warming). That includes the followers of Sigmund Freud (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatwritings/psychology), Alfred Adler (http://ibshambat7.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/the-evil-concept-of-adequacy.html) and Sam Vaknin (https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/narcissistic-personality-disorder-and-dr-sam-vaknin). Should I endeavor, as Christ commands, to love these people? Maybe I could make an effort to understand them. The feminists are women who weren't valued or were treated badly and became angry for that, and many on the other side are men who had to deal with these women. Sam Vaknin was busted for a white-collar crime and is looking for some kind of redemption. These people are coming from understandable considerations. Understandable however is not the same thing as right. So should I then “love the sinner hate the sin”? That may very well be the way to go. Do not wish ill on any of the preceding, but remove from society their poisonous influence. Do not respond with anger but with viable refutation. You will see that, and more, on my site. https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought
who could possibly deny the Holocaust with what we know today? Holocaust Survivors talk about their tragic experience at Auschwitz The Last Days of Spielberg The Greatest Story Never Told [FULL 6.5 Hour Documentary] What do you think we should do with deniers? Throw them all in jail to rot?
The most dangerous individuals are those who think of themselves, or others, first and foremost, as members of groups rather than as individuals.
There's an appropriate place for group-think, but not when it comes at the complete sacrifice of individuality. To believe otherwise is to believe government is God. There is a healthy type of balance. And all too often, it seems some who demand more freedom are willing to trade some individual liberties for others. Maybe there is some inherent trade-off, and the two cannot coexist together. Social irresponsibility likely is not compatible with certain of these individual liberties.
Freedom and liberty can be two very different things. Freedom is always freedom from something. One can be free from anything. One can be free from wealth, or one can be free from poverty. Liberty, on the other hand, always refers to the same thing. Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for their self. Socialism, for example, offers freedom from liberty. Socialism offers freedom from individuals having authority over and responsibility for themselves. When ever I hear "freedom", whenever I read "freedom", I ask, 'freedom from what. I am left to believe that much could be clarified by using the words freedom and liberty more carefully. I have heard people talk right past each other by using "freedom" and "liberty" interchangeably.
Each and everyone of us are dangerous, non of us are exempted being capable of committing crimes and violence, that is why we have policemen all around us.
Really? A complete equivocation? No gradation? No more? No less? All the same? That's what you're going with?
We are only constrained because of our belief of the laws of God and the laws of the land and the punishment entailed if we trespass, I think that's our reality as human beings.
Not by gravity, or the need for water, food and shelter? We're not constrained by scarcity? Mortality? We're not constrained by the fact that we don't know almost everything or that we don't know anything necessarily? "We are only constrained because of our belief of the laws of God and the laws of the land and the punishment entailed if we trespass"?
We could not only live by naturally provided supports, but we also need food, shelter,clothing and even leisure, basic necessities required for us to thrive. Often times the acquisition of these needs creates friction among us, dog eat dog, only the strongest survives, animal instincts being instigated by such need as hunger, comfort etc., but we are smarter we have a very developed brain and found out that through assimilation and cooperation we could have these needs more efficiently and also did found out that dangerous individuals are counterproductive when integrated into the group. It's either these dangerous individuals should control themselves or they can me ostracized and confined.
Seems to me that mutual respect comes, in part, from mutual perceptions of danger. Not necessarily (though certainly often) in the physical sense, but also intellectual and competitive. At least for most people. I think those that actually prefer to be surrounded by those they view as inferior are a tiny minority (though often end up with much of the authority...).
