The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING
- This topic has 216 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
' Well Einstien’s cosmological constant was a fiddle at the time but it is back in the frame again in a slightly different form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant The guy who discovered it was stunned by the data that he collected and couldn’t believe it and thought they had made a blunder as well and when he published his stuff that he would end up a laughing stock and it would be the end of his career. He ended up getting a Nobel prize for it. There are a lot of seminal pieces of scientific advancement achieved by people expecting a completely different results or ‘truths’ from experiments. So much for scientist creating truths rather than the material world shoving them in your face. On anti gravity and dark energy etc they are looking at the possibility of ant-matter having anti gravity at the moment which would be neat explanation. I think it on the record that I had thought Das Capital Marxism was probably a load of bollocks even though I had been in the SPGB for sometime. I read and changed my mind and think it is basically OK. Anyway. You appear to be refusing to tell us what meaningful living is; other than getting pissed and smoking weed always interferes with it? It surely is a matter of WHAT IS IT rather than just WHAT IT IS NOT. Lots of artistic creation has been inspired with people being off their heads on one thing or another. All these extreme ‘Muslims’ aren’t supposed to drink does that lead to meaningful lives? Or is it matrimony that leads to that kind of thing? I really would like to know what area are you coming from is this Buddhist type ‘shit’ or chop your dick off hermit Christianity? ' [ comment by Dave B on 21/04/2017 ] ' Well Einstien’s cosmological constant was a fiddle at the time but it is back in the frame again in a slightly different form. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant The guy who discovered it was stunned by the data that he collected and couldn’t believe it and thought they had made a blunder as well and when he published his stuff that he would end up a laughing stock and it would be the end of his career. He ended up getting a Nobel prize for it. 'Thank you a lot for bringing this point to our notice. Nevertheless, my main point is it's NOT mistakes made by GREAT people but their brilliant achievements that are what we ought to take cognisance of and care about. You don't seem to contradict it, do you ? I don't like the term ' fiddle ' and would like it to be replaced by a term like bloomer, blunder, etc. ' You appear to be refusing to tell us what meaningful living is; other than … ' I'd like to suggest that you should re-read the writing The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING and then re-state your objections, which prevents you from accepting it as your life-principle, to the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living.
' … with the end of the coercive state and the economic dependence of women on men, so will "matrimony" as the state-endorsed living together of a man and a woman. ' [ comment by ALB on 27/04/2017 ] Just yesterday, a vernacular daily reported that a guy accused of uxoricide was given a life sentence. The woman he murdered was a working woman that worked to earn money and bore the whole cost of provisions for her family including her husband, an alcohol addict, most probably, who did never pay a penny for even the bare necessities of life needed by his spouse and children. The guy killed his wife because the latter either declined or failed to pay for the cost of his addiction. This news piece is important because it throws light on the fact of ' economic dependence of women on men '. Matrimony or a travesty of it happens to be a same-class culture, which means both of the bride and the groom come from the same-class families. High-society women enter into matrimonial bonds with men coming from high society, and girls belonging to families at or below the poverty line get married to boys that belong to the poor and vulgar millions. High-society women and most of middle-class women are not dependent, financially, on men for their necessities. And in India, most of the poor-class women have to work to scrape a living, and most of such women get grains of wheat and rice at nominal cost under the National Food Security Act from the Indian Govt. And less than 5 per cent of Indian menfolk have got taxable income; that means all those men that are looked on by the Govt of India as poor people― so poor as to deserve full exemption from the payment of taxes on their earnings, add up to over 95 per cent, OK ? The state of affairs being such, can we claim that women are financially dependent on men for their basic necessities ? In the developed First World, as far as we know, working women constitute half the workforce, RIGHT ? Not only do these women make a far better living, they also happen to be entitled to far better social security benefits when they're out of work or off sick than their counterparts in developing countries like India. How many First-World women are dependent on men for their basic necessities really ? If matrimony deserves to be defined as ' the state-endorsed living-together of a man and a woman ', prostitution and non-marital relationships also equally deserve similar definitions. As I see it, it's NOT right to view matrimony as something ' state-endorsed ' because both the State and the society have, since the Biblical times, recognised and respected prostitution and other relationships outside of marriage along with fruits of such relationships. Matrimony was never, nor it is now, except some years belonging to modern times, something like a licence. The State or society never needed people before, nor does it need people now, to indulge in the luxury that is matrimony or a travesty of it. The state and society need women's children. They NEVER needed to know, NOR did they ever need to NOR do they now care about, who actually fathered the children.
I think to attempt to catagorise Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder/Attention Deficit Disorder as an invention of the American pharmaceutical industry, is naive. ADD/ADHD is as real and as potentially impactful as conditions such as autism, Asperger's Syndrome or Schizoprenia.
I don't want to wrong anybody, so I won't go as far as to say that you are a psychiatrist, but some of your postings, in my humble judgement, are of a nature calculated to excite the liveliest suspicions.
Bob Andrews wrote:I don't want to wrong anybody, so I won't go as far as to say that you are a psychiatrist, but some of your postings, in my humble judgement, are of a nature calculated to excite the liveliest suspicions.
Close, but no cigar.
' … So, what's all the fuss about — just a cigarette and a glass of beer. What's wrong with that? ' ( ALB's comment # 182 ) ' … If you'd allow me to give you a piece of advice, I'd ask you to say to yourself that communism is a GREAT ideology, and that communists are GREAT people endowed with good sense, strong backbone, and invincible willpower and thus persuade yourself that if you're a true communist, you must prove stronger than the allure of and addiction to all unhealthy indulgences. ' ( my reply ( #189 ) to the above comment by ALB ) Dear ALB, I expected to have received your response to my reply to your comment cited above. I'm afraid your silence might be taken to mean that to you, ' just a cigarette and a glass of beer ' happens to be worth far more than The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING.
I don't smoke myself but you are changing the subject. There are penty of other food faddists in the SPGB — not just vegetarians, nature cure people and partisans of various different diets, fruit juice drinkers, even vegans. People smoke all sorts of things too. So you'd be in good company if you joined. But we don't regard choice of diet as a political matter but as a private one for each member to decide for themselves.
Quote:But we don't regard choice of diet as a political matter but as a private one for each member to decide for themselves.When does imposition of unhealthy food for profit become a political issue of public health. http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2018/03/processed-meat-for-processed-people.html
Yes, but the solution is not for workers to change their eating habits (though they can if they want to) but for them to change the basis of society from class ownership to common ownership of the means of producion so that food is no longer production for profit.
I have been changing my eating habits all of my life driven by affordability, availability and personal gullibility. After the thousands of A-bomb tests worldwide which happened 60 or so years ago, we could be mis-attributing carcinogenic diseases to unhealthy life choices, as opposed to the fallout from those tests which took place.
Agriculture, aviculture, Farming, etc, etc, is not killing us, what is killing us is the drive for profits. With the so-called organic products, the capitalists are making big profits, by the meantime workers must spend more money by changing their eating habits. The capitalists are poisoning the air, the rivers, the oceans, the land, animals, plants, our cells and organs. We are living in a world where everything is blamed on the wrong entity, workers are blaming their problems on others workers instead on the capitalists, and workers are blaming their diseases in their eating habits instead on the drive for profits of the capitalist class. Our only solution is to overthrow this stupid society and build our own society
' I don't smoke myself but you are changing the subject. There are penty of other food faddists in the SPGB — not just vegetarians, nature cure people and partisans of various different diets, fruit juice drinkers, even vegans. People smoke all sorts of things too. So you'd be in good company if you joined. But we don't regard choice of diet as a political matter but as a private one for each member to decide for themselves. ' ( comment by ALB; see #201 ) Dear ALB, inventing sophistries, I'm afraid, does no credit to the inventor of such silly stuff. Anyone can invent hundreds of such things, and any sensible people can see the fallacy of such stuff. If a human can stand up straight with their head held erect in front of the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY and MEANINGFUL LIVING, I think they deserve great credit in today's world. Never ever did I say anything to suggest that people addicted to something have got no plus points or merits. But then, corrupt politicians, unscrupulous power brokers, people like the convicted former South Korean President Park Geun-hye, etc, etc also have got a lot of pluses. And just because someone has got a lot of pluses, they can't deserve to be recognised as fully civilised or communist, IMHO.
Prakash RP wrote:If a human can stand up straight with their head held erect in front of the PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY and MEANINGFUL LIVING, I think they deserve great credit in today's world. Never ever did I say anything to suggest that people addicted to something have got no plus points or merits.It just looks like judgemental, pompous self-regard to me.
Prakash RP wrote:just because someone has got a lot of pluses, they can't deserve to be recognised as fully civilised or communist, IMHO.In MHO, anyone who feels they have the right to dictate how others choose to live their lives can't be recognised as fully civilised or a communist. As you fall into that catagory, you can draw your own conclusion.On the other hand I have heard of the positive health benefits of going and sticking your head up a dead bear's arse, as someone who is interested in a healthy and meaningful life, perhaps you should try this health giving action?
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
' It just looks like judgemental, pompous self-regard to me. ' ( admin #207 ) The observation quoted above happens to be an instance of a mere subjective impression that, even if it proves right wholly, doesn't deserve to be reckoned an argument or a logic meant to prove or disprove something. You don't want people like a corrupt bureaucrat or the convicted, former South Korean President Ms Park Geun-hye to be accepted as truly civilised, do you ?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.