17 Apr 09
Originally posted by Palynkahelloooooo ???
Haha! Accusations of plagiarism in a Nasreddin story. đ”
geez.
what we ought to talk about, not debate, but just talk about, is whether Nazrudin was a Sufi, a Dervish, or why he is a character that shows up from Eastern Europe to China.
Don't you just love Nasrudin stories?
And how about comparing Nasrudin to Coyote? The tribes of the southwest USA pueblos may have their ancient prehistoric origins in central Asia -- could this be why Coyote seems quite similar to Nazrudin? Are Nazrudin and Coyote cousins to Loki?
Nazrudin stories are almost universal in the points they make -- why not use them to illustrate and discuss things?
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadthat is non-responsive. the witness is directed to answer the question or withdraw his objection. Otherwise the objection shall be over ruled as without foundation or proper support.
It simply doesn't. The story does not in any way show that morals are ultimately selfish.
17 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageok, I contend that the point of morality is not altruism, but rather to serve one's own interests by using non-violent, non-coercive means to find a consensus position that all parties can accept.
That's his interpretation of the story, which he ought to explain.
What's yours?
Since Nazrudin determined accurately that his lunch companion would have chosen the smaller fish out of politeness, expecting Nazrudin to demur, our Mullah took advantage.
The joke is clear -- but the point being made also is pretty clear. People from very different economic, cultural, and educational backgrounds should not make assumptions based on manners -- they should be clear about what they want.
Morality is at its base a form of ethical conduct meant to allow one to advance one's own interests in a non-violent and reasonable manner so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts.
Morality is not synonymous with altruism.
To clarify what I mean by selfish, I am not talking about excessive individuality.
Behaviors that can be said to be moral developed in all likelihood, according to biologists, because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits.
Thus, while moral behavior curbs excessive individual selfishness, the pursuit of social cooperation through moral or ethical behavior is, in itself, a way of advancing one's own interests.
We all have the drive to survive. Nazrudin merely cut through the bull crap and claimed the lion's share of the food, then maneuvered the allegedly more sophisticated city man into endorsing the choice.
That's funny -- and also good politics.
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by ScriabinIt's not smart to be rude. Never smart. Always foolish. You show your real face while you're rude. Sorry to have to say it, but you would be more pleasant if you were nice.
I do not suffer fools gladly
stop being foolish and I'll stop being sharp with you
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasand the sky would be more blue if it were more blue.
It's not smart to be rude. Never smart. Always foolish. You show your real face while you're rude. Sorry to have to say it, but you would be more pleasant if you were nice.
are you trying particularly hard today to be dim?
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by ScriabinOh, lord... Again more rudeness from you.
and the sky would be more blue if it were more blue.
are you trying particularly hard today to be dim?
Do you really think that you are on-topic with your postings about me? You chosed the title "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame". I think you lose...
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnashaven't I been clear enough? I don't particularly value what you think so long as it is such a low quality product.
Oh, lord... Again more rudeness from you.
Do you really think that you are on-topic with your postings about me? You chosed the title "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame". I think you lose...
Say something worthwhile and I'll be glad to be nice -- continue being a boring dimwit and pay the toll therefore.
17 Apr 09
Originally posted by ScriabinWhy do you then persist to answer my postings? Just to dig further and further off-topic?
haven't I been clear enough? I don't particularly value what you think so long as it is such a low quality product.
Whenever someone goes off-topic by being attacking, then he has already lost the debate. This was no debate from the beginning, just plain rudeness. It's not civilized.
You have lost the 'debate'. I don't have time for you anymore. Good bye.
18 Apr 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnaswhat debate?
Why do you then persist to answer my postings? Just to dig further and further off-topic?
Whenever someone goes off-topic by being attacking, then he has already lost the debate. This was no debate from the beginning, just plain rudeness. It's not civilized.
You have lost the 'debate'. I don't have time for you anymore. Good bye.
this wasn't a debate, idiot.
We were supposed to be talking about the meaning of the #@#%!$# Nasrudin story, not debating
he says: "Why do you then persist to answer my postings? Just to dig further and further off-topic?"
No, because it is FUN. what a twit.
this guy is so dim a half-wit gave him a piece of his mind and old Fabian held on to it.
19 Apr 09
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagethank you.
Your first response to this thread is an accusation of plagiarism. your next an outright dismissal of it, and you talk about being rude?
As a matter of fact, though, Scriabin is rude -- and you are a dolt: you're both right.
now, why is Nazrudin in various guises known from Eastern Europe all the way to China?