No problem, so long as it's done voluntarily,service to self is necessary for the individual to grow physically and psychologically/spiritually.
once the basics are met, then that one can share its excess through philanthropy
thank you
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No problem, so long as it's done voluntarily,service to self is necessary for the individual to grow physically and psychologically/spiritually.
once the basics are met, then that one can share its excess through philanthropy
thank you
Eh? By drones I mean mindless automatons that selflessly serve and sacrifice for the hive.love would contradict.
isn't that what drones do? love making? making music?
No problem, so long as it's done voluntarily,
have your never seen a honey man in a brothel?Eh? By drones I mean mindless automatons that selflessly serve and sacrifice for the hive.
Sorry, your wet and sticky honey men analogy makes no sense to me.have your never seen a honey man in a brothel?
honey pot
dripping wet and sticky
the hive already has it all
no problem the subconscious caught itSorry, your wet and sticky honey men analogy makes no sense to me.
Methinks twas showing off knowledge of such affairs.Sorry, your wet and sticky honey men analogy makes no sense to me.
Imo it really depends more on culture. Britain isn't what I would call a two-party system and we tend to be individualistic in contrast to many nations, but when compared to the US we can be quite collectivist.
Not reallyBit of a misrepresentation imo. It's not really a dichotomy, but 2 points on a continuum where modern societies fall somewhere in between.
Individualism in this context is not really about 'relying only on themselves', it's about the extent to which a given society places emphasis on the rights of the individual vis-a-vis the rights of the group (tribe, family, religion, nation, etc.).
The greater the degree of collectivism the more the individual is expected to subjugate some of their own desires to fulfil traditions or limit their behaviours to meet group expectations.
and there it is...how far that line goes is always the question....the imbalance we see when injustice prevails, wars, strife, dirty competition, attrition, etc.The greater the degree of collectivism the more the individual is expected to subjugate some of their own desires to fulfil traditions or limit their behaviours to meet group expectations.
If he likes licking honey off of a callboy's chest then that's cool I suppose but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the thread topic.Methinks twas showing off knowledge of such affairs.
Ew.
Implying that individuals are the opposite of society, which is terrible nonsenseI'll elaborate...
People are social animals in a spectrum.
Some lean more in the individualism direction.
Others in the hive direction.
It's not about extremes....purity is a rarity.
"We tend to be individualistic" is one of the most ironic statements I've read in a long time.
Personal property is not an individual freedom, it's a social obligation. Otherwise I agree.I think that individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive. There can be individual freedoms that benefit the collective.
For example, personal property is an individual freedom that benefits the collective.
And it goes both ways.
For example, public property is collective principle that benefits individuals.
It is not even accurate to say that individualism and collectivism exist as opposite poles on a dynamic scale. IMO, that fails to describe the relationship of the individual to the collective and vice versa.
The question should be: What sorts of things are best managed collectively and what sorts of things are best managed individually?
Not really
I don't buy that inference (denial of a spectrum).Implying that individuals are the opposite of society, which is terrible nonsense