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