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 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário