moores are a little strange to me, I have never had any problems with
takeing from them what I agree with and dismissing what I do not, and
sociaty too has little in the way of tools to force.
No I do not think credit is evil, merely not for me. I can't trust
myself to budget correctly if a line of credit was avaliabel for me.
Ultimatly though Mrs Douglas wants a house in the country and so I
shall one day be morgated up to the hilt no doubt.
Yes I agree, a tag can be just a tag. It is a reasonable idea to hide
your real self from the internet, I know this, but meh! agian that I
guess is just not my way.
On Sep 22, 4:07 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whether your morality is subjective or subjected, a conscience adapts
> as one chooses or is forced by society.
>
> I was talking with a male friend yesterday about a convert to
> Catholicism- back in the day when mates changed religions to present a
> united front- who said, "Take what you want (from religion) and leave
> the rest behind." That is probably easier said than done for many.
>
> Credit isn't evil. It certainly got me through tough times.
>
> A tag is not a disguise all the time. There are reasons. :-) Bye, for
> now.
>
> On Sep 22, 9:44 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yes I agree Rigsy the future is an open book. I would like to think I
> > would not have allowed my wrist to be tattoed, although both clearly
> > are now.
>
> > I don't do credit, and while it is true that I have made no attempt to
> > disguise who I am in my online life, this is the choice that I have
> > made, and made freely.
>
> > Morality like language is not static and changes from time to time so
> > who knows, but I'm sure you know my view on the subjectivity of
> > morality by now.
>
> > On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nor would I, Lee, but the future is an open book, isn't it? Would you
> > > have allowed your wrist to be tatooed with a number if you were Jewish
> > > in WWII? How about the instant profile of finances that springs to
> > > life when you apply for a new credit card or car loan, etc.? How about
> > > the trail of internet social site profiles that influence potential
> > > employers? There's GPS. Well, perhaps our transparency will lead to a
> > > new morality, in some cases.
>
> > > I googled. I understand, somewhat. To me it's like that old term "open
> > > mind" prior to technology. At the moment I am in a struggle with my
> > > computer which is frustrating. How can an intricate knitter and one at
> > > ease with detail be so put off by a computer- although I never have
> > > studied the manuals and my children have tinkered beyond my
> > > expertise.
>
> > > Anyway, human conscience is already an insertion of sorts, in my
> > > opinion.
>
> > > On Sep 22, 6:34 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This true Rigsy, but again I would simply not allow the chipping of
> > > > myself or mine.
>
> > > > As to Open Source, google it dear Rigs google it.
>
> > > > On Sep 21, 4:48 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > We already are able to microchip pets and infants are urged to be
> > > > > registered with Social Security. Who is to say microchips for citizens
> > > > > will not be a government order someday in the future?
>
> > > > > The government does have a great deal of power already. What is "open
> > > > > source"?
>
> > > > > Who knows, beauty spots and warts may someday hide recorders and
> > > > > cameras! :-)
>
> > > > > On Sep 21, 4:07 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Rigsy we are all in control of ourselves, I would not let the
> > > > > > goverment microchip me or mine, would you?
>
> > > > > > Are the goverment really in control of technology though? I mean how
> > > > > > much control does it have over the open source movement for example?
>
> > > > > > On Sep 21, 3:12 am, rigsy03 <rigs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > But if government has control of technology, healthcare and education
> > > > > > > why do you trust it will use those things properly? We are at the dawn
> > > > > > > of technology's invasion of personal liberty. For all we know,
> > > > > > > microchips will be implanted at birth to track each citizen.
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 20, 3:25 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Not even that James, merely an example of how people differ and how
> > > > > > > > ideas differ and even how peoples perception of the same ideas differ.
>
> > > > > > > > Let us take it right back.
>
> > > > > > > > You said:
>
> > > > > > > > 'I believe in cradle to the grave social securities, and that is
> > > > > > > > something that should be on offer. People will work for these things,
> > > > > > > > make sacrifices, and likely be happy about it if they have a sense of
> > > > > > > > it helping to strengthen society. I think many people would work
> > > > > > > > harder and even be willing to work smarter if there were tangible
> > > > > > > > results, if that work pays into the social securities and societal
> > > > > > > > infrastructure and benefits the individual at the same time- what more
> > > > > > > > could one ask for?'
>
> > > > > > > > My reply was saying no I do not belive that people will work for these
> > > > > > > > things, make sacrifices or likely be happy about it. I meantion our
> > > > > > > > history of how communisim has worked or failed to over the last 70 odd
> > > > > > > > years as an example of both the priciples you mention, and the way in
> > > > > > > > which humanity approaches them.
>
> > > > > > > > It is clear that many people will not work harder or make sacrifices
> > > > > > > > even for the betterment of the whole of humanity.
>
> > > > > > > > You go on to say:
>
> > > > > > > > 'Well the more I think about this the less it sounds reasonable to
> > > > > > > > assume that given the viable choice and reason to believe it wasn't a
> > > > > > > > catch 22 that anyone capable of doing anything would choose a life of
> > > > > > > > scraps over anything productive'
>
> > > > > > > > While this is I guess a reasonable assumption to make, again the
> > > > > > > > reality of our history of Communism shows that people can, will and
> > > > > > > > do, if not choose scraps, at least be quite content with them rather
> > > > > > > > than help out their fellow man.
>
> > > > > > > > Ultimatly we are and odd species, rather more sheep like than wolf
> > > > > > > > like. From my British eyes I can only look on astunded at the
> > > > > > > > shenanigans of the Conservative Christians in the USA. Stuff that
> > > > > > > > really shouldn't be happening or that perhaps would have ellicted a
> > > > > > > > vaster outcry from the public 20 years ago. I can see how modern
> > > > > > > > history has brought us to such a place, and I sorta understand how
> > > > > > > > people are so easily lead on what to think and who to blame. Stronger
> > > > > > > > leadership, strong moral ideas are what we need, but we can't expect
> > > > > > > > the whole of humanity to help or even agree, and this exactly the
> > > > > > > > thing.
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 8:05 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Heh okay I can see you didn't get my point.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I only mention the C word (Communisim) as an example of my words
> > > > > > > > > > privious to uttering it.
>
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for keeping true to it then Lee, I'll try to dig deeper. :) I
> > > > > > > > > take it you don't mean that Communism is the best example of a society
> > > > > > > > > geared toward the objectives I am proposing, nor that it is the only
> > > > > > > > > means to those ends. Should I take your meaning to be that Communism
> > > > > > > > > is a system undertaken to such social ends and proves people would
> > > > > > > > > rather sponge? I could agree with that perhaps, but I do not agree
> > > > > > > > > that people who are raised and a society that is built around
> > > > > > > > > effective means to promote those ends would necessarily look anything
> > > > > > > > > like what Communism has over the last 70 years. I may still be missing
> > > > > > > > > your point, if so please hit me with the blunt end of it. :D
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 4:39 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> > Heh James it is not hard to imagine what you see as unreasonable to be
> > > > > > > > > >> > the reality of the situation. As I said in my last post, let us look
> > > > > > > > > >> > at how Communisim has worked or not for us over the last 70 years or
> > > > > > > > > >> > so.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Political ideology may be convenient for discourse on political theory
> > > > > > > > > >> but when it comes to solving social challenges I think it is ill
> > > > > > > > > >> equipped compared to, say, child psychology. Sure, communism sounds
> > > > > > > > > >> great on paper, but I think it is especially prone to corruption- who
> > > > > > > > > >> can be trusted with such power, it might be workable under a strong
> > > > > > > > > >> anarcho-syndicalistic population to keep it in check but then it
> > > > > > > > > >> wouldn't be Communism and lacking a large scale defense
> > > > > > > > > >> command&control infrastructure would be vulnerable to corruption and
> > > > > > > > > >> conquest from within and out. Sounds kinda pie-in-the-sky for today's
> > > > > > > > > >> world.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > The problem is that we are all differant, what may seem sensable to
> > > > > > > > > >> > some will not seem so to others.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Granted, this does not establish whichever negative effects are the
> > > > > > > > > >> result of social systems that encourage the 'sponging' behavior. What
> > > > > > > > > >> I am trying to identify is the context of humanity, the variables that
> > > > > > > > > >> encourage beneficial and desirable behaviors and also under what
> > > > > > > > > >> circumstances the negatives emerge so that they can be minimized.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> > What is you stance on the dealth penalty, as a view to an example of
> > > > > > > > > >> > how differantly we all think?
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Hm, too expensive to pursue proper justice, ineffective deterrent,
> > > > > > > > > >> provides little gain to society at large. Bout sums it up for me.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> For example one could argue beating kids and
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário