excuse me if I do not make that call right now. Hahhah or perhaps the
oposite is true of me? Can it be that I view the world through shit
tinted glasses?
It could be, but honestly I may come off as that kind of human, but I
am in fact quite the glass is half full kinda bloke.
Yes most of us would bend over backwards to help our family and
friends, how many of us regulary give to charities though, or how many
of us would step in to stop an other human being attacked in the
street?
As I say we for the most part very sheep like, we follow gladly, now
then we need strong moral leadership. Find that man or woman, and the
rest will I belive flow more easily.
Hahah yes how to phrase it without appearing to be full of my own self
importance?
The standard cry of the intelecual human, people are largly idiots, or
rather we seem to contain amongst us a small percantage of those
propered to really think about things. Ho hum and the world turns.
On Sep 21, 5:13 am, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:25 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.
>
> With everything we know about human nature, the need for companionship
> and purpose, the need to connect and share valuable and intimate
> relationships I am amazed at this. Most of what I know about healthy
> people tells me that they would suffer massive hardships for their
> loved ones, willingly and with pride, a testament of strength. Less so
> for the average stranger, perhaps, but not necessarily. I think that
> what you describe is a sign of social disease, complicit to usury,
> greed, selfishness and delusion of fulfillment- like drunkards all. It
> just seems there is much that could be done if we chose to do it
> intelligently, we could build a better human existence and be rewarded
> with meaningful existence. Some do, we should learn from them.
>
> Hope it doesn't sound like I have rose colored glasses Lee, the world
> I've known is anything but.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I think people are mostly ignorant of what we are capable of, and how
> fulfilling simple things can be, even necessary. Strong leadership and
> morality I consider innate, but diminished in society. Turning this
> topic into a feasible plan/solution would be quite a challenge- but,
> isn't that what exemplars are doing? Not taxiing us to paradise but
> helping to chart the terrain of mental transmutation (so to speak).
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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 following the Bible
> >> >> examples is the only way to produce 'properly' behaved children, that
> >> >> doesn't fit with scientific knowledge on the subject of child rearing.
> >> >> I think there is helpful scientific knowledge on all these subjects
> >> >> you bring up and would like to see more of that in public discourse.
> >> >> As it stands progress is held to the beck and call of reaction-terms
> >> >> tossed at the public to produce reliable results (for the same people
> >> >> that aren't fixing things) rather than encouraging people to develop
> >> >> productive and intelligent discourse.
>
> >> >> Considering the level of ignorance promulgated in our political
> >> >> debates I find it amazing our (US) democracy works to the degree it
> >> >> has.
>
> >> >> > On Sep 16, 11:37 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> 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. In that case chronic welfare should
> >> >> >> come hitched with therapy, mandatory, to identify those who could
> >> >> >> really use some more psychological attention and keep people from
> >> >> >> falling between the cracks. Some may, and that is one's right, but a
> >> >> >> goal of societal health should be to facilitate productive lives my
> >> >> >> any means possible. The costs to society are too great otherwise and
> >> >> >> there is a huge amount of work to be done.
>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > I do not belive all people would work for these things make sacrifices
> >> >> >> > and be likely to be happy at all.
>
> >> >> >> > We can see that so far Communism has not really worked.
>
> >> >> >> > I agree that we must as a society look after those less abelt o look
> >> >> >> > after themselves, but we need to be very carefull indeed that we do
> >> >> >> > not create a sociaty of spongers.
>
> >> >> >> > On Sep 16, 3:39 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> 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? Of course one could ask for more, and that is why I
> >> >> >> >> think we should have a dual economy- we obviously cannot trust the
> >> >> >> >> politicians, lobbyists, and corporate interests to factor human beings
> >> >> >> >> and the well being of society into their bottom line we need something
> >> >> >> >> to compensate for this. We need a progressive social plan that
> >> >> >> >> tenaciously pursues social stability, security, sustainability, and
> >> >> >> >> excellence from the bottom to the top and across the board for near
> >> >> >> >> and long term objectives. It should be an option.
>
> >> >> >> >> I am playing out hundreds of scenarios trying to solve the hard
> >> >> >> >> questions like the one
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário