Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm not following you. Where do you go from my statement to that one?
If? Doesn't that statement seem to indicate that everyone is a potential "victim"?
This gets to the heart of the "liberal" vs. "conservative" notion of "victimhood". Liberals seem convinced that everyone can or will be a victim and conservatives think that anyone who is a victim deserves to be a victim because they did not ACT. Modern liberals are g ...[text shortened]... Classical "liberals" were good thinkers and actors. But classical liberalism is dead.
Implicit in my statement is that control of leaders must be held by those who empower them. Sure, as far as I know, there is no human being 100% immune from harm but I don't see how that implies I consider everyone as a victim (if that's what you're implying). Quite the opposite. It says that if you don't want to become one, you should take responsibility.
Originally posted by PalynkaAny system that depends on the good-will of its leaders will end up being dominated by the least scrupulous of its members.
I'm not following you. Where do you go from my statement to that one?
Implicit in my statement is that control of leaders must be held by those who empower them. Sure, as far as I know, there is no human being 100% immune from harm but I don't see how that implies I consider everyone as a victim (if that's what you're implying). Quite the opposite. It says that if you don't want to become one, you should take responsibility.
You don't say that they "Might" or "may" end up being dominated. You state boldly that they "will" be dominated, ie, become victims of "the least scrupulous" members.
But that is a classic example of semantics interfering with good dialogue. I see your point, but will insist that the failure to communicate is almost a given in any argument more subtle than a nuclear blast.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNo, it's not just semantics. I agree I should have qualified my statement better.
[b]Any system that depends on the good-will of its leaders will end up being dominated by the least scrupulous of its members.
You don't say that they "Might" or "may" end up being dominated. You state boldly that they "will" be dominated, ie, become victims of "the least scrupulous" members.
But that is a classic example of semantics interf ...[text shortened]... lure to communicate is almost a given in any argument more subtle than a nuclear blast.[/b]
Let me retry: I think that it will (not may or might) end up being dominated by the least scrupulous of its members, unless replaced by a different system.
(think about a possible steady-state or fixed point in a dynamic system)
In short, it's not sustainable and if we attempt to prolong it, it will lead to non-desirable consequences.
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, it's not just semantics. I agree I should have qualified my statement better.
Let me retry: I think that it will (not may or might) end up being dominated by the least scrupulous of its members, unless replaced by a different system.
(think about a possible steady-state or fixed point in a dynamic system)
Images induced by Chaos theory, wherein certain of my chieftains set atop their steeds in a storm of wind and rain,snow and ice -- stolidly and steadfastly becoming irrelevent as "congress" outlaws horses. (It's that communication thing again!)
It's ok to just say "Hunh?"
In short, it's not sustainable and if we attempt to prolong it, it will lead to non-desirable consequences.
Correct me if I am wrong, but how can "we attempt to prolong it" if we are the good guys? I can see it if "we" are the bad guys. But by your definition, we the good guys are victims and have no way of fixing or indeed "affecting" the bad guys. (I am playing devil himself. He needs no advocates.)
Or if I readjust my "understander" a bit... ahem... (left two turns on the kindness knob, tune the harmony slider up a notch or two) Are you saying that bad guys will win every time good guys fail to act? And that we shouldn't try to preserve "badness"?
edit... Semantics again. Using your preposition in original Lemma, "Bad Guys" equate to "least scrupulous of its members" and therefore "Good Guys" would equate to "Most scrupulous of its members".
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaIs this where the LAW comes in, one under which everyone is accountable? It would seem the only way to benchmark good-will is against an unchanging standard.
No, it's not just semantics. I agree I should have qualified my statement better.
Let me retry: I think that it will (not may or might) end up being dominated by the least scrupulous of its members, unless replaced by a different system.
(think about a possible steady-state or fixed point in a dynamic system)
In short, it's not sustainable and if we attempt to prolong it, it will lead to non-desirable consequences.
Originally posted by kmax87"What is ‘ethical’ or moral? A general definition is that actions that conform to a ‘right set of principles’ are ethical. Such a definition begs the question: Whose principles? On what are those principles based? Do those principles arise from reasoned development by rational scholars? Or from ‘divine’ inspiration? Does it matter, so long as they inspire moral and ethical behaviour? ... In practice, with or without a deity, every action is permitted unless human social structures preclude it. Yet, on what principles are those social structures based? Ethics and morality?
Is this where the LAW comes in, one under which everyone is accountable? It would seem the only way to benchmark good-will is against an unchanging standard.
Theocracies and other societies using religious motives, or pretexts, have undertaken genocide, torture, and war. Ideologues without the backing of formal religious doctrine or established theocratic organizations have done the same. The obvious conclusion is that ‘moral’ values must be ethical in and of themselves, and not through religious or secular authority or rationalized logic. This leads to the critical questions: How can one define what is ethical without resorting to authority, religious doctrine, or societal expediency? And whom will any society trust to make such a judgment, particularly one not based on authority, doctrine, or expediency?"
Exton Land
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWell without getting into a spiritual tangent, it would seem that the last 6 of the ten commandments, those laws that Christ summarised as, loving one's neighbour as one's self should pretty much cover most dilemma's of what is moral and ethical. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you seems a pretty good maxim to underpin any social order. If you filter out the sado masochists as a weather bell of what constitutes appropriate actions, then in general you could argue that the outcome of the set of laws thus derived would be very similar to those derived from that other great enlightened maxim of being able to do as thou wilt. (as long as it causes no one else harm-or scares the horses, of course!)
"What is ‘ethical’ or moral? A general definition is that actions that conform to a ‘right set of principles’ are ethical. Such a definition begs the question: Whose principles? On what are those principles based? Do those principles arise from reasoned development by rational scholars? Or from ‘divine’ inspiration? Does it matter, so long as they inspi ...[text shortened]... es preclude it. Yet, on what principles are those social structures based? Ethics and morality?
Those who champion libertarian freedom would claim, that an absolute unchanging set of Laws is unnecessary as long as all matters are dealt with openly and honestly. Whatever social arrangements that comfortably evolve out of the consensual arrangements that consequently develop is considered to be a moot point. This schema of moral relativity hinges on the ability of all to be open frank and honest. If people make an informed choice then who is to judge their social and private arrangements? That's the theory anyway. For these the last 6 commandments are viewed as an arbitrary set of rules without any intrinsic value other than the validation given them by societies willing to be programmed into that mindset and way of thinking.
Originally posted by kmax87I posted "Exton Land" because this is a pseudonim used by Modesitt, and I wanted to stay within his framework. My aim was to juxtapose "Principles" and "Laws" as the "examined" set as to "Morality".
Well without getting into a spiritual tangent, it would seem that the last 6 of the ten commandments, those laws that Christ summarised as, loving one's neighbour as one's self should pretty much cover most dilemma's of what is moral and ethical. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you seems a pretty good maxim to underpin any social order. If you ...[text shortened]... tion given them by societies willing to be programmed into that mindset and way of thinking.
One comment on your reply: I sure the heck don't want to be done unto by a masochist!
😲
(laugh line)
Now to the more specific use of "principles" as relates to "law" in the object called "morality".
Let's take the exact example of Prop 8 in California that made a simple statement into law. "Marriage shall be seen as the union between a man and a woman." It passed quite comfortably thanks to the Black vote and the efforts of the Mormon church. I do not live in california, but support the law because it lays aside ambiguity of "what is marriage". If there is no definition, then next year after gays have their day, PETA will push for the right to marry sheep. Although this would improve that sub-set of DNA no end, it causes problems because then you have to equate the sheep to humans. I also support it because I am a devout believer in Orwells ideas on language, usage and totalitarianism. So though I am an atheist, and I am fond of many gay people, I would sooner invent a new word and leave "marriage" to be what it has been TO EVERY GROUP, CULTURE AND TRIBE for all time; union of woman and man.
So the law is moral in my eyes and in the eyes of the majority.
A small percentage of gays (activists) do not like this because of the liberal insistence of "equality above all else". So though it is the "Law" they view it as "immoral". Is it immoral? Could it be considered immoral if we were to view the "Principles" in Land's "Morality" as Prop 8, ie, "THE LAW OF MAN AND GOD and a principle by which we can govern our civil and moral behaviour"?
1 edit
What other real world examples of "the set of principles" can we examine?
How about Saddam and the Iraq war?
I am amused at the children of the left and their eternal "He Lied! Bush Lied! There were no weapons of mass destruction! It is an ILLEGAL war!"
giggle. Children are so cute.
I supported killing Saddam. Here are my reasons:
1 - He was a bad guy who needed to be killed.
2 - He betrayed my nation (the USA) because we gave him support to kill the islamists of Iran and instead, (or along with) he used weapons of mass destruction on his own people.
3 - He started three wars that killed a lot of people.
4 - He supported terrorists. He WAS a terrorist.
5 - I didn't like him.
Reason number 5 is the only one I will even try to support in argument, and it is the only one I need in my own mind. Reasons one through four are just fluff. As is the UN and International law and all that phoney baloney.
Why? Because I TRUST myself. I don't need GW Bush or anybody else to tell me what is right or wrong. He needed killing.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBut there is the other argument that killing him off just made Iran that much stronger. How long will Iraq last as a country when we pull out? Of course he was a world class assshole but when you back up and look at the whole picture, it seemed to me he was putting Iran in check with all their constant bickering and wars, even though Iran had a better military, they still could not ignore Iraq when it was in his hands. I think now Iraq is so fractious that Iran may be able to take over and own the whole place. If that happens, now what? We go back in with a million man army?
What other real world examples of "the set of principles" can we examine?
How about Saddam and the Iraq war?
I am amused at the children of the left and their eternal "He Lied! Bush Lied! There were no weapons of mass destruction! It is an ILLEGAL war!"
giggle. Children are so cute.
I supported killing Saddam. Here are my reasons:
1 - He ...[text shortened]... I don't need GW Bush or anybody else to tell me what is right or wrong. He needed killing.
What if we could have given Bush that nice truth drug? Why didn't he go after Bin Laden in Pakistan/Afgan? Instead, going after Iraq. What was his real motive? Oil? Just feeling like 'I want to finish what Daddy started'? What would you think if either one of those motives had been made public? Do your really think Bush gave a crap about the people of Iraq when he sent in the army?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseHi Don,
But there is the other argument that killing him off just made Iran that much stronger. How long will Iraq last as a country when we pull out? Of course he was a world class assshole but when you back up and look at the whole picture, it seemed to me he was putting Iran in check with all their constant bickering and wars, even though Iran had a better milit lic? Do your really think Bush gave a crap about the people of Iraq when he sent in the army?
I love ya like a brother man, but ya gotta stop watching that Coast To Coast non-stop conspiracy crap. If you think that Bush hasn't "gone after Bin Laden" you need to stop being so selective in which conspiracies you pick to join. Try the "the CIA has secret alien aircraft killing people in their yards with ray guns" conspiracy. It at least has a chance of being true.
Or are you saying that the US military is too dumb and stupid to multi-task? And don't give me the standard left wing crap about "we don't have enough troops. Bush stretched us too thin." BS
edit... missed the last conspiracy about bush hating iraq. No. I don't like iraqui's so why should I expect Bush to like them? They ALLOWED a dictator to take charge of their lives. Responsibility anyone? I do not believe in "victims" like the children of the left. If you are going to let a dictator take charge of your life, then you and your family deserve to die when people come to kill him... and you for supporting him.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI love the stroke of humanity that runs through your soul, what happenned in your life? I'm guessing that you don't have many friends do you?
Hi Don,
I love ya like a brother man, but ya gotta stop watching that Coast To Coast non-stop conspiracy crap. If you think that Bush hasn't "gone after Bin Laden" you need to stop being so selective in which conspiracies you pick to join. Try the "the CIA has secret alien aircraft killing people in their yards with ray guns" conspiracy. It at least ...[text shortened]... r family deserve to die when people come to kill him... and you for supporting him.
So let me get this right, you believe that if a dictator seizes power in a country the people who 'let' him gain control (ie the innocent population) are legitimate targets when it's time to remove him. All because they didn't do enough when he seized power?
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt took you a while, but yes. That is "The Ecolotan Enigma" which is the subject of this thread. Do you always have such trouble separating a debate/discussion from reality?
I love the stroke of humanity that runs through your soul, what happenned in your life? I'm guessing that you don't have many friends do you?
So let me get this right, you believe that if a dictator seizes power in a country the people who 'let' him gain control (ie the innocent population) are legitimate targets when it's time to remove him. All because they didn't do enough when he seized power?
Sigh. Why do they allow children in the forums?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyBut that dictator had a huge military machine holding him up. Don't you remember the assassination attempt against him and he destroyed the whole village where it originated? Don't you remember the 30+ million killed by Stalin? How bout over a third of the Cambodian population killed by Pol Pot? It's all well and good to blame the people but just how do you fight an army that has tanks, helicopters, bombs, RPV's, machine guns, etc.? What, bore a tunnel to the leaders' house and do a lightning raid on his bed? Just exactly what does a person do in that situation? The only way Iraq could have gotten rid of Saddam was to subvert his military and that wasn't going to happen from anywhere inside the country, they had spies spying on the spies who spied on them, they learned that lesson well from the Soviets. I think we beat the Soviets because we forced them to spend themselves to death but that was a country's resources used against another in an indirect war. How could any Russian have done anything against that incredible Soviet war machine? Sure, you can have a Hamas kind of rebellion but how many suicide bombers would it have taken to have removed Saddam? I put it there would never be enough just the same as Hamas, just a flea irritating a military giant. All the suicide bombers in Israel effect nothing except to piss off the Israeli's as the last round already has shown. Hamas can usually rely on ten thousand people to show up to their rallies but after this latest excursion into Gaza by the Israeli's, there were maybe 20 Hamas dudes in a pitiful little rally proclaiming victory over Israel, can you believe it? Lets see, Israel just killed over 1000 Gazan's, and lost maybe 30 soldiers. Yes, I can see how that is a huge win for Hamas... Which does not mean I favor either side, I lived in Israel for 3 years and saw the atrocities on both sides.
[b]Hi Don,
I love ya like a brother man, but ya gotta stop watching that Coast To Coast non-stop conspiracy crap. If you think that Bush hasn't "gone after Bin Laden" you need to stop being so selective in which conspiracies you pick to join. Try the "the CIA has secret alien aircraft killing people in their yards with ray guns" conspiracy. It at least ...[text shortened]... ur family deserve to die when people come to kill him... and you for supporting him.[/b
Anyway how you been? Long time no type! All I am saying about Iraq is don't you think they would have gotten the real terrorist, Bin Laden and his crew if they had just left Iraq alone and used those 300,000 or so troops in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Wow, Pakistan, such great friends they are, two faced hypocrites. It was pretty well known Bin Laden was no friend to Saddam, a few face saving deals but they were enemies.
I think Bush was led up the wrong tree by the deal makers who had already bought him out. Don't you remember his speech when he was on the campaign trail the first time? In a huge affair, a money gathering dinner financed by the oil companies, he said, and I quote:
"There are the haves and the have mores. You are my base" Unquote.
Just what am I supposed to deduce from a statement like that? Don't tell me you actually like Chaney? Like they said, Bush was just a heartbeat away from the presidency.