[Image-1]
To the person who trespassed/poked around my property on Mountain Rd and my privacy, and then proceeded to whiningly complain to the (it appears to be according to the bylaw inspector, who now has to bully me into making my home look nice for them, the government and the whiner) city council that MY HOME didn’t look nice enough for you I would ask that you contact me in some way for a conversation on the difference between something or someone looking ugly and something or someone actually being ugly. Of course, I have found that one of your petty, shallow minded (worried about appearances much?), prejudiced and bigoted kind usually isn’t used to such a thing.
And why? This is because to YOU, my home doesn’t look nice.
MY HOME is not here to look nice and inviting for others, but to be a home where I can come and find calmness, balance and rest from your kind. It is a place of something you can’t understand or at least requiring a different (not better or worse) kind of intelligence to perceive, and an ability to accept that which is different. As you have proven, it is not something you understand or can do.
I mow the front of the yard as a compromise to your kind; so as to not offend the delicate sensibilities of those who can’t see the deeper beauty and keep it relatively clean of debris. And as anyone of intelligence knows, a compromise is an agreement between equals. As your kind has always proven, you don’t think that I am enough of a human being to compromise with or even treat with respect on this point.
And why? This is because to YOU, my home doesn’t look nice.
My project, for under the crab apple tree, is something I had planned for to take long term. Now to your kind, anything past your nose or wallet is too long term and the idea that someone could plan something to take years is way, way too far beyond you. After all, worrying about appearances requires only thinking about the present and to see the beauty that will come with the passage of time requires something your kind doesn’t have: the ability to see past the superficial. But that doesn’t matter.
And why? This is because to YOU, my home doesn’t look nice.
I live my life as best I can, with the same thoughts you lie to yourselves and your loved ones about; be yourself and live your life as you chose, so long as you are not directly hurting anyone one. Now, the appearance and state of my home isn’t hurting anyone who is respectful of me, my privacy and my rights, but to your kind it is probably hurting you where it really hurts; the wallet. How, I can’t really see unless you’re income involves taxes or higher property values.
And, as another factor, after all, we wouldn’t want lower property values and thereby individually have to pay less taxes, now would we (and yes, I do understand the connections between taxes and city finances)? Such a thought would be insane to anyone, eh? Doesn’t really matter after all.
And why? This is because to YOU, my home doesn’t look nice.
I have many reasons why MY HOME looks, feels and is the way it is, but I imagine your short term attention span is being stretched, so I leave with this; there is a difference between something or someone looking ugly and something or someone actually being ugly. I know the difference between the two concerning my home and what you are.
The question is, are you able to?
Doesn’t really matter after all.
And why? This is because to YOU, my home doesn’t look nice. —Tired of governement condoned bullying, prejudice and bigotry.
This article appears in Dec 18-24, 2014.
The difference between looking and being ugly is not quite as wide as you think….
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-K8lLDjTYC4s/U7NU…
move to the real country op. if you choose to live within a city you have to get along with people you may not like and you have handed over a good chunk of your freedom of expression to strangers. that’s the bargain for living with amenities.
I don’t understand why this concept of push/pull give/take upside/downside seems to be a mystery to so many people.
if you are not willing to accept the restrictions, step out.
Does anyone believe in paragraphs anymore? I do appreciate the punctuation.
Your arguments – OB- are as bad as your attempts to mow your debris-scattered lawn.
No one is arguing your right to have an ugly home; but un-cut grass, peeling paint, junk and other assorted items scattered throughout the property is indeed against by-laws. Are you saying we should be above the law, at least for aesthetic reasons?
And that YOU get to set property values for the rest of the neighborhood is absolutely crazy!
Along the lines of your rant, a suggestion: a neighbourhood clean-up-your-home party. It will either help your situation with the by-law officer or piss off the neighbours royally. Either way, you win.
Now, who says my comments aren’t helpful?
You worry too much Op, just do what all the other lazy people do- SORRY- UGLY(Seriously.. ugly? ooooookay) people do and say “Yea i’ll clean that right up mr.government guy!” and don’t :p Or blame it on Harper, whatever floats your boat.
“What do ya mean all that rusty metal is dangerous?! It’s not my fault if kids and small animals play there!” – Quote from some piece of garbage living in SackVegas.
Most tedious bitch ever. Your house is an eyesore. Get over yourself.
Unsightly Premises bylaw for the win!
Id like to see a picture… then Id judge you or the person who reported it.
‘Your kind’ – you mentioned this not once but several times, OB – what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Does ‘your kind’ mean anyone who thinks your house is a festering shit pile?
The problem with not having any unsightly premises laws, even in the “country”, is that there is a risk of someone buying the property next to you and turning it into an impromptu salvage yard, hoarding paradise or home “business” with vehicles coming and going at all hours.
I grew up in a town where it wasn’t uncommon for people to have an extra car or two on blocks in their yard (sometimes even in front of their house) that they used to harvest parts for their “good” car. Let me tell you, it was demoralizing to grow up in the midst of that and I’ll take property rules and regulations any day.
With a name like ‘chairman meow’ I can definitely understand why you have your point of view on following the Guv’ment as can do no wrong & need to be there to tell you how to live your life
.
But I came on to post to the OB , that BD/SM Molly has a good point. Move out to the country where there are a great deal less restrictions… I know for a fact you can’t simply open a junkyard for wrecked/used cars, there are definite rules on that . But you certainly have much more freedom in how you have your home, & the land you own around it (& you can have chickens out here) & no one will fine you ~;p
I have a friend who has a 25 acre lot & right in the middle is his home, you can’t see it from the road, you have to drive up a driveway that has to be around 800 to a thousand feet long, it winds into his place which is surrounded by trees that go out to the edge of his property. Beautiful spot, peaceful quiet & most importantly away from all the “YOU’s” out there who feel they have to shove their nose up your ass to see if you have any signs of colitis or not.
So c’mon move yourself out to the countryside, there’s still lots of room
ummmm I hung up my stilettos and whips a long time ago more……
have we all street viewed poor mountain road to death by now wondering which house it is?
It still is kind of a dickish move to go straight to the board and not actually bring it up to the owners first to give them a chance to actually cooperate with their neighbors.
And you OB are a SET.
More on said, “With a name like ‘chairman meow’ I can definitely understand why you have your point of view on following the Guv’ment as can do no wrong & need to be there to tell you how to live your life”
First of all, Chairman Meow is simply chosen as an ironic moniker that plays into my fondness for felines. No philosophical, ethnic or political implications should be construed.
Secondly, there is no nebulous, shadowy, self-appointed third party called THE GOVERNMENT that independently sets laws and “tells us how to live.” We live in a democracy and we get the govenrment we choose. Laws and regulations come into being because enough members of the public ask for them. Otherwise, we would have no protections from people who acted selfishly, irresponsibly or even maliciously. For example, if someone was blasting music at 3 am, keeping us awake, and refused our request to turn it down I bet any oen of us would be happy to make a noise complaint to the police and have the police tell the noise makers “how to live”.
more doesn’t like cats, but some of us do http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/345…
I, for one, welcome our feline overlords.
http://naplak.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/…
https://p.gr-assets.com/540×540/fit/hosted…
Too many fat wimps abusing the term ‘bully.’ Ezra Levant called me a bully for flipping him off and telling him to eat a non-kosher dick, er dill!
Clean up yer shitpit – crab apples do not excuse you from mowing your lawn. You ain’t got time to be composing these run-on barely-legible paragraphs… get out and clean your junkyard.
Some men need a stiletto up the azz to wake em up – like dis guy.
Boot-Fuck da patriarchy!
LOL – a community raised and run by 40 year old unwed grandmothers = patriarchy.
Keep ’em comin’ Mo Fool. A regular Hoopi Goldberger you are.
Mary Bore said: “Too many fat wimps abusing the term ‘bully.’ Ezra Levant called me a bully for flipping him off and telling him to eat a non-kosher dick, er dill!”
1. People need to stop overusing the word “bully” or it will be as meaningless as the word spiritual has become. Disagreeing with someone isn’t bullying. Bullying implies the abuse of a power imbalance of some type.
2. I’d been blissfully unaware of who the heck Ezra Levant was until now. A quick Google and one minute of reading and, holy crap, I suddenly know too much!
Has anyone else noticed how MO_FOOL is ‘dis’ing and ‘dat’ing like he’s from rural Cape Breton?
Or are the use of these words a form of ‘black face’ from a lily white MO_FOOL?
I suspect, as Ivan, it’s the latter.
Whether she’s a grotesque cultural stereotype in the Rastus Minstrelsy vein, or a freshly minted M.S.V.U. SJW, she deserves to made U.N. Goodwill Ambassador for the Freebleed Movement, now that the elevator from the Overlook has retired.
It’s extra funny to me when adults say they’re being bullied. And Ezra can still eat a bunch of dicks. If he thinks I’m bullying him then we can be on the undercard for Trudeau-Brazeau II and III and even IV.
Imagine the PPV ratings for that:
Justin Trudeau vs. Patrick Brazeau – the rematch
Mary Bore vs. Ezra Levant
Bro Tim vs. 10 extra large pizzas
Totally Google mapped it. Got it narrowed down to two houses, all of the other yards are pretty much pristine. If it is indeed one of the two choices, then OB needs to mow their f**king lawn.
The Guv’ment, comrade , is a group of talking heads …controlled by the ‘ Party ‘.
Which are an Unelected group of people not responsible to anyone , especially to you or I as a voter.
If we were actually in a true democracy , I might agree with you but we live in a farcical democracy, where the amount of votes collected doesn’t matter, its the amount of elected ‘ridings’ gets you a ‘majority’ Guv’ment & that can be done with a minority of actual voters ! !
If you really believe you live in a democratic country, your IQ is much lower than your screen name would suggest ! Because we live in a Constitutional Monarchy, and while the prerogative of the Monarchy to refuse to sign a duly passed ‘bill’ by Cabinet & Senate vote (the so called democratically elected body & the Senate aka -the appointed one …oops another undemocratic part of our system) .
SO while it is extremely unlikely ,by either disallowing assent, reserving or delaying Royal assent it can be done. This power once in the hands of the Governor General was removed in 1930.
BUT It is still within the power of the head of our State AKA the Queen to do so.
So much for democracy ‘eh ~;p
Hey, More, if you don’t like our democracy, feel free to take your self-righteous fanny to one of them ISIS or Putin countries!!!!!
Mary, never said anything about liking…just that we don’t live under a true democracy.
Perhaps if more people actually knew that , Canadians could actually push for a true democratic country. & just as important know what that is !
Blah blah blah with your anti-government/conspiracy gibberish! Go hang out with Bro Tim and Biscuit, but duck when you see pizza crust and arrows flying.
To everyone who mentioned that I should clean up yard. The front does look respectable and is mowed.
There is no debris in front. Any debris I had in back WAS piled neatly in one spot in the yard and only on my back porch blocking the door to act as a psychological block to any possible thieves who would attempt to enter there; I only use my front door to enter and exit my home.
I had an oil tank cut in half, turned upside down and was using it to safely store propane in back. To put a sign on it and state such would have been saying, “Steal here.”
To view my back yard you must actively work to see around the bushes surrounding my property.
And it is not a festering shit pile. If you walked back there except for the picnic table, the wood piled in one spot and on the back porch, you would think it was a forest meadow and very calming for someone who does not have a lot of time for traipsing through the woods.
As for moving to the country? I bought this place in 97 and work to rebuild it from the ground up, so there is siding (no pealing paint), scrap metal or any other harmful objects that you prejudge to be there.
As for using the term, “bully” in such a, to some of you, minor and out of context manner? Look in a dictionary. I am being asked to change how my yard is, not because it is dangerous, but because of appearance.
As for paragraphs, I did properly submit it as such.
To continue:
I have lived in my home since 97 and only in this last year did anyone complain about the state of my yard, which I haven’t changed except for the picnic table for at least 15 years. My regular neighbours had respect for me and how I lived. We had more people move into the neighbour and it was only then that A complaint arrived.
Since we live in a worldwide society which condones attacking those who are different, overt prejudice and bigotry, a need to worry about appearance and a time honoured tradition of forcing/insulting/attacking others to adapt to what we believe is best, I need a place which is accepting and doesn’t change. A place where force is only used to reject physical harm if it is absolutely necessary. Something empty of human control and human believed order (a blade of grass has more order in it than ever will be in humans.
One person inquired about the “your kind” I mentioned? At it’s simplest description, it comes down to those lacking in self-honesty and an understand of (what can be best described as) objective fairness. Objective fairness can best be understood if you fully understand the concept of, “do unto others as you would have those do unto you and those you truly care about (not the ones you say you do).”
what’s the project under the crab apple tree?
Simply put, I am raising the surrounding hemicircle level of that area from 5′ lower to the level of my front yard (the property I own comes in two levels). I am letting any compost I put there go as time passes. When the level is right, I shall probably be in my fully retirement age and shall put a bench there to sit under the tree and overlook the city.
Imaginary ugliness and mythological imperfection are all pervasive it seems, doesn’t it?
Ugliness comes in many forms and is as subjective as beauty, The Fox. The ugliness I was explaining in the opening post is in the [u]forcing[/u] of one view upon another.
This learned and taught/enforced shallowness is something which is condoned in any human society which exists today, was in the past and what will continually be in the future.
It is simply one part of the chain which has caused the pain of so many in history, is causing even now and will cause by terrorism/bullying, theft, rape, suicide, wars…
Sorry, for the jump in logic from worrying about appearances to worrying about that which appears different. it just follows that you will then be attacking/killing/destroying the different so you don’t have to change yourself/your beliefs (and in doing so show that it is possible to accept that that which is harmless and has proven to be harmless through history).
If the above seems disconnected as an explanation, I am just a bit tired and really not up to my usual.
BEAUTY & UGLINESS
“Ugliness comes in many forms and is subjective as beauty.”
Really? Are there no objective criteria for what is beautiful and ugly? Is it all relative to the individual observer? Does this make sense? There is, of course, the obvious sense of beauty in that an object itself is neither beautiful nor ugly but requires the assessment of an observer to determine that it is so. But who ever claimed that the unobserved object is either beautiful or ugly? To do so would be incoherent.
However, how do you explain the widespread consensus on natural beauty, beautiful art and of course in my own case, a beautiful mind? The only possible response would be that what we are looking at is little more than a consensus of individual opinions on the nature of beauty, a randomized collection of individuals who happen to claim that beauty exists only in the eye of the beholder and that the concept of beauty, as such, is necessarily relative. But to say that “Beauty is relative” is to utter a self-contradiction since the assertion itself is not intended to be relative. It is intended as a universal, objective truth about the nature of beauty which admits of no exception, the very thing the relativist denies. That’s called self-contradiction or, if you prefer, a self-refuting assertion.
Next.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
PS. And the same applies, “mutatis mutandis,” to ugliness.
___“the widespread consensus on natural beauty, beautiful art and of course in my own case, a beautiful mind”
___Is it a consensus based upon an objective truth about the nature of beauty or is it a learned judgment? Is the value of beauty based upon animal survival traits and the better survival the more beauty or a choice of what is Good is beauty?
___To a caveman, what was beauty? Look to many cultures of now and in the past, and then say what is/was the general consensus of that time and place. To a farmer, is a pile of rotting food, grass and waste beautiful? If you believe that apes/monkeys have intelligence, what is beauty to them? Is your beautiful mind attractive to all or only certain individuals and in what way?
___Beauty is indeed inherent in existence itself, but only in the perception. Which as you explain IS a contradiction. You are arguing only the viewpoint of existence being a two or three point perspective of good/ugly and bad/beauty or good/beauty, bad/ugly and grey/it just is. Reality itself becomes a complete paradox when you view it in a slightly more objective or multi-valued perception and for the point of sticking to this subject; it is beauty, it is ugly, it is both, it is neither, it is all of the previous and none of this description.
___The concept of beauty is simply an attraction or perception put upon another object or person or what one individual sees within/without itself.
RSVP
Futurethink (5:32PM)
You appear to have missed my point which was, quite simply, that the concept of beauty exists independently of the individual who claims that beauty exists only in the eye of the beholder. While the content of the concept itself may vary over time, it is still independent of the individual observer who claims that something is or is not beautiful. This is to make the necessary distinction between the concept and its embodiment in empirical and changing reality.
I never claimed that the perception of beauty is a contradiction but only the assertion that beauty is relative to the individual, that it exists only in the eye of the beholder. My claim was philosophical rather than empirical, whether viewed in terms of different periods of history or in terms of variations of culture.
I don’t understand the rest of your comments, not because of a failure of intelligence on my part, but rather because they are incoherent. Anyway, nice talking.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
___It would appear that I over estimated you.
___No, I did not miss your point of beauty being objective and not just subjective, because I described the same concept only using a different viewpoint and way of saying it. It was there for you to see if you had taken the time to read AND think about what I was saying, “Beauty is indeed inherent in existence itself, but only in the perception.”
___The concept we describe with the symbols of, “beauty, bellezza, cái đẹp, frumuseţea (or any other translated languages symbol)” IS a part of reality and never needs an observer to exist. That is true. But, without a perception, what is it?
___I am serious about that question, “Without using symbolism/a perception show me what that concept IS?” Tell me how it IS beauty? Because, without the concept shown by symbolism/a perception it is not really anything except a vague [i]something[/i], isn’t it?
___As for the rest of the comments, if you didn’t even get the above obvious ideas, then the concept of multi-valued logic (look it up) and the necessary multi-perception to understand it are not even going to be close to easy for you to understand.
THE CONCEPT & THE PERCEPTION
No, the only thing that you over-estimated was yourself. In any case the answer to your question – I will try to phrase it coherently – is, “Can the concept of beauty exist without the perception of beauty?”
On an individual basis the question itself is incoherent since it reduces to the question as to whether one can, in the absence of the possession of the concept “beauty,” perceive that which is beautiful. In other words, the question is incoherent because the perception that something is or is not beautiful PRESUPPOSES prior possession of the concept. One cannot claim that something is beautiful without knowing that of which beauty consists, i.e., the concept. That is obvious.
However, I was not speaking individually but rather philosophically, in terms of the objectivity of the concept of beauty itself, that which transcends any particular individual’s “take” on it. In other words, the concept of beauty is that which enables coherent perception of it to take place. It is not a “vague something” as you seem to suppose but rather that which consists of symmetrical form, embodied in varying degrees, in perceptions which aspire to the ideal. Such variations, however, are NOT infinitely variable as you seem to suppose..
Your last sentence consisted of nothing but an “ad hominem” attack on me which, as is always the case with such assaults, gives evidence only of the intellectual bankruptcy of the one launching the assault.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
___Now this will be fun.
___Actually, I did over-estimate you. Due to you not taking time to read and think about what I have in my posts and that I have mentioned some things you have mentioned already (in a different way) and even shown that I agree with you about others. You then proceed to chew me out for (to what you perceive) not knowing them. No worries. I am curious to see if you will prove me right or wrong after this one though.
—”One cannot claim that something is beautiful without knowing that of which beauty consists, i.e., the concept.”
___Are you are saying that you have to have a preconceived knowledge of what makes you feel good and can only then perceive it as “beauty” then. Or are you saying that you have to have knowledge of the defined concept?
—“coherent perception”
___???Perception is at all times coherent. If it wasn’t, there would be no perception in any way, shape or form. Or are you trying to limit the concept of perception to only certain ways?
—“It is not a “vague something” as you seem to suppose but rather that which consists of symmetrical form, embodied in varying degrees, in perceptions which aspire to the ideal.”
___Are you talking about the objective concept or the subjective concept of “beauty” in this sentence? Because once you brought the symbol of “perceptions” into a sentence it fell under subjective debate and eliminated considerations about objectivity.
___To say that the concept described by the symbol of “beauty” requires a “symmetrical form” or that it is something, “which aspire to the ideal” places limits upon the objective concept.
___For the concept of “beauty” to be objective in our understanding of it, would mean having an understanding of EVERY definition of the symbol “beauty” and EVERY way that all the definitions could be applied to in any and every situation and perception.
___From that, no matter the object in front of an individual and whether the person thinks it has beauty or not, the objective concept described by the symbol of “beauty” is still there in all its versions and not in a symmetrical form or requiring to “aspire to the ideal.” But is just there in “some” way. To put [i]any[/i] limit upon it makes it subjective to the individual placing the limits.
___As for my attack!?!? Your reply will prove who is wrong and who is right concerning what you know, what I know and whether or not this conversation has degraded into a pissing contest or not.
Pick one and we’ll talk.