About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Eh....




Post 1

Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 5:59pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Is that agreement or disagreement?




Post 2

Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 6:07pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What? o.o

-- Brede



Post 3

Thursday, May 10, 2007 - 8:59pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

The only substitute foh feah is...



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Friday, May 11, 2007 - 3:18amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
No, Chris, it isn't.




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Friday, May 11, 2007 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I just wanted to ask you. But maybe I didn't. I wasn't sure or unsure about whether you were being serious or unserious about it or not. It's good and bad to know and not know to where you stand and don't stand on this.




Post 6

Friday, May 11, 2007 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit




Post 7

Friday, May 11, 2007 - 7:10pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Chris, I often agree with Ross Jeffries but I cannot make sense of what he says here.  Please articulate.



Post 8

Monday, May 14, 2007 - 7:55pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Key is: “substitute,” not ‘opposite.’



Post 9

Monday, May 14, 2007 - 9:29pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Jon, perhaps you mean antidote? Fear is properly fear and has no substitute, nor should it, The quote is simply shoddy thinking put to words. You are being over-generous. Sloppy aphorisms aren't crippled children, they're coprolites.

Ted



Post 10

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 8:19amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

It’s not my quote, so I can’t mean antidote. He said “substitute,” so I pointed that out for those who might be confused by thinking he was making a statement about fear’s opposite, which he wasn’t.

I like the quote and don’t mind “substitute.” If the subject takes on compassion as an antidote to fear, then he is substituting one for the other.




Post 11

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 12:34pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
 
Bad aphorisms are not crippled children, deserving of our pity

It's not worth trying to save a thought whose originator didn't care enough to express it coherently in the first place.

To substitute is to serve in the same role.  When a teacher is out sick, she has a substitute stand in for her.  One can, perhaps, substitute a club or a hammer for a mallet. You might replace fear with compassion, just as you might remove a mallet from a shelf and replace it with a screwdriver, or a teacher might get replaced by an alien pod-being.  But one cannot substitute compassion for fear.  Would one be better served by feeling compassion when one sees a falling piano or a charging rhinoceros?  Like pain and punishment, fear serves its purpose, and trying to replace it with an inappropriate substitute does no one any good.

Now of course, the author of this quote probably had some mushy goody-good feeling that he kinda-wanted to express, but this thought miscarried before implantation.  Trying to save it is misplaced generosity which is a waste of time.  Teresa's original response ("Eh") was more than adequate, more than this numbskullery ever deserved. 

And now, for something completely different....
 
Ted





Post 12

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Ted,

Why are you talking about pity and misplaced generosity? I don’t have pity for the quote or its author, and I don’t need to be generous—I like the quote, as it is. You don’t. I get it.

My dictionary says “to take the place of: replace,” so his use of “substitute” looks perfectly fine to me.

I am confident the context is irrational fears, such as insecurities, and not rational ones that would arise from falling pianos or charging rhinoceroses. So, “Would one be better served…” Yes, one would be better served by shedding one’s irrational fears and insecurities.

Therapists encourage clients with problem anger to remember that the world is not trying to torture them. Rather, the people they abuse with their anger (people with fears and insecurities of their own) are just trying to get by in the world. The goal is for the client to replace his fears and resultant anger with compassion.

I believe Jeffries is the Speed Seduction guy, so his use of this technique is probably meant to address fear of rejection. I would guess his reasoning is that one is less likely to experience fear of rejection if one adopts the assumption that women reject him not to diminish or embarrass him, but out of fears and insecurities of their own.


Chris, would you provide the entire paragraph, (or more)?




Post 13

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 5:12pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Satis iam et clarissime dixi, nonne, Jon???
Vide. Nunc tacebo...

[Latin lessons, $99/hr]
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/15, 9:51pm)




Post 14

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 7:38pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Ted,

I can’t tell if you’ve said you have no more to say and wonder whether I am a nun, or that I’ve made things clear for you and wonder if I would like you to shut up.




Post 15

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
ROFL!



Post 16

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 8:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What do you expect, Jon, for one who sees self infantily......;-)



Post 17

Tuesday, May 15, 2007 - 9:28pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The quote was a paragraph all by itself. It was a response to another person in a discussion group.




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.