Rigsy personally I do not want a monarchy . Big waste of money probably 100£ per person .. royal families are extremely. Expensive and should not be on the public tax funds.
Allan
On Jun 7, 2012 4:04 AM, "rigsy03" <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:
That pleases me. I have been reviewing my art books- a few eras left-
but really resting after a super push with equipment and materials to
rev up the room I will paint in...God willing! It's been about ten
years and there are three canvases I want to finish plus more to come,
I hope. One- a figure- is in one day and out the other in my head
until I figure it out. //Well, the systems were designed by those with
the power to do so and not really geared for some of the changes and
power does not usually shift gracefully plus there is problem of
nostalgia and myth-worship for some. But I must say you Brits put on
quite a show for the Diamond Jubilee! Any chance we can rejoin the
Commonwealth (what wealth?) ?
On Jun 6, 4:31 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many thanks James - many of us know something is wrong and it's good
> to see we are at least free to exchange views. There's a book called
> Liberalism and the limits of justice by Michael Sandell (I cribbed
> what I wanted from Amazon's look inside feature) - he describes
> something called Deontological Liberalism.
> In the end this seems to mean justice is an over-riding part of
> morality, but also an ideal and we should worry less about never
> achieving it fully. I broadly agree with rigsy most of the time and
> could say this of most posted in here. I'm after something else. I
> could mention Bruno Latour's 'we have never been modern' - but we'd
> end up in his jargon. The idea is we think and act in an institution
> we've never had.
>
> On Jun 6, 10:09 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrot
>
>
>
> > Meh of course slavery is not our lot at all, we can choose simply to cease
> > striving to live.
>
> > On Saturday, 2 June 2012 23:09:11 UTC+1, malcymo wrote:
> > > Hey Vam,
>
> > > Man who takes out mortgage? A gambler. Credit has more to answer for
> > > than the woes of the individual. When a whole society gears up to do
> > > stuff on a promise do they not court disaster?
>
> > > Slavery is our lot isn't it. From birth to death we have to work for
> > > food and shelter, I guess. What fucks our brains is when we realise
> > > that our labours are for other peoples food, shelter, resort holidays,
> > > superyachts, island retreats etc and we cant quite recall how we got
> > > there.
>
> > > As to addiction well that is another issue. Legalise and get rid of
> > > the associated crime is my present stance.
>
> > > There is no doubt that modern society fails to do enough to protect
> > > the individual so that he can enjoy a better chance of a stable and
> > > secure future. What can be done about it? I suppose the search to
> > > answer that question is why this string exists. As an aside :- All
> > > species throughout time have had to deal with the ongoing cycles of
> > > glut and famine. To imagine that stuff is going to stay the same is
> > > denying the existence of opportunities to grow.
>
> > > On Jun 3, 4:00 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What would you call a man who has mortgaged / taken a loan against his
> > > > future earnings... ?
>
> > > > The bugger perforce go along the dictates of his present employers,
> > > > right or wrong, or look for the scarce change and find himself in a
> > > > state of greater slavery...
>
> > > > What would you call a man who commits small crimes for his addiction
> > > > and is hence forever under the thumb of the sleuths, who have their
> > > > own agendas to make a call ... ?
>
> > > > The bugger is no position to refuse.
>
> > > > What would you call a man who is used to his current or future
> > > > earnings, which satisfy his numerous emotional and status needs... ?
>
> > > > They'll kill to safeguard that... which allows him to retain his wife,
> > > > kids, estate...
>
> > > > On Jun 2, 12:29 am, malcymo <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Is it often not the case that the slavery is inflicted upon ourselves
> > > > > by our greed.
>
> > > > > On Jun 2, 5:49 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Small societies are very nice, they can be a good example to all of
> > > us. Our
> > > > > > society is one of greed and in reality slavery.
> > > > > > Allan
> > > > > > On Jun 1, 2012 1:18 PM, "malcymo" <malc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I am currently living in a small pacific group of islands. There
> > > is a
> > > > > > > central government but many of the islands have no formal
> > > policing.
>
> > > > > > > So:- their behaviour is controlled, for want of a better word, by
> > > the
> > > > > > > village in which they reside. Usually less than 100 households.
>
> > > > > > > The great advantage they have over a large country with all
> > > embracing
> > > > > > > laws is TIME. Every indiscretion can be carefully considered. They
> > > can
> > > > > > > assess each case, if you like, on its merits. In large western
> > > > > > > societies it would seem that simplistic (Not simple, in the sense
> > > that
> > > > > > > they have been thought through) restrictions have to be placed on
> > > > > > > individuals because there is neither the money nor the time
> > > available
> > > > > > > to consider peoples actions in any depth. An example would be
> > > > > > > something like the speed limit. We all know that 29 mph is safe
> > > and 31
> > > > > > > mph is bloody dangerous, don't we. Of course this is nonsense but
> > > it
> > > > > > > does seem to lead to less accidents.
>
> > > > > > > It has always seemed to me that one of the key factors towards
> > > > > > > building a more moral society is to put responsibility for actions
> > > as
> > > > > > > far as possible at the lowest possible level. This in itself,
> > > however,
> > > > > > > is difficult because different societies have different views
> > > > > > > regarding that which would be considered moral. Also, many of our
> > > > > > > problems such as environmental destruction are global in nature.
>
> > > > > > > Anyway, the upshot is that i cannot get my mind around these
> > > > > > > paradoxical difficulties. I sense that diversitty is important and
> > > > > > > should be conserved but on the other hand I would be the first to
> > > > > > > criticise a community which acted in a fashion which my society
> > > would
> > > > > > > consider to be barbaric or irresponsible. I sense a paradox here
> > > which
> > > > > > > confounds me.
>
> > > > > > > I think that this is why I am following this string. Maybe you
> > > guys
> > > > > > > can come up with some useful ideas.
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 1, 5:58 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Yes James I think the bar is set to low but I can not help but
> > > wonder if
> > > > > > > > people with a low morality bar are easier to control.
>
> > > > > > > > If modern morality is one of killing and pop war is it of any
> > > value? If
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > look at the number of war games avaliable. Where is the morality
> > > going?
> > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 2012 12:26 AM, "James" <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 5/31/2012 5:43 PM, Allan H wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> Birth order has little or nothing do with anything -- as I
> > > read what
> > > > > > > > >> wrote I hear ah dificult to express a person justifing how
> > > they live
> > > > > > > > >> their life. My experience is when people start to justify
> > > there is
> > > > > > > > >> something not quite right. A viewpoint is simply a viewpoint.
>
> > > > > > > > >> The moral law of Do No Harm is the foundation, the question
> > > is how do
> > > > > > > > >> you view it.
>
> > > > > > > > > I think it is a pivotal moral principle in one's personal and
> > > > > > > professional
> > > > > > > > > life to consider what effects their actions or inactions will
> > > have on
> > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > effected, and seeking to resolve the eventual dilemmas that
> > > arise. A
> > > > > > > kind
> > > > > > > > > of growth in scope and depth, keeping to a personal code like
> > > this.
> > > > > > > Some
> > > > > > > > > take an oath to preserve the trust imparted by power and
> > > station, I
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > it should be expanded quite a bit! The bar is set too low.
>
> > > > > > > > > On another note I think it would be paralyzing for someone to
> > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > 'why' it is important, without the 'how' to implement.
>
> > > > > > > > > Allan
>
> > > > > > > > >> On May 31, 2012 2:29 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com
> > > > > > > > >> <mailto:rigs...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> Lots of choices are "expensive" and not all women lose
> > > their
> > > > > > > > >> "figures" ( which does not note male decrepitude);
> > > further, wars,
> > > > > > > > >> diseases, catastophes, etc. trim populations; the point
> > > you may be
> > > > > > > > >> trying to make is that all humanity deserves the "good
> > > life"
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > > >> earned or entitled to by the efforts/incomes of others. I
> > > don't
> > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > >> life is "fair" or that all humans are equal in
> > > intelligence,
> > > > > > > talent or
> > > > > > > > >> survival tactics or that my view is anything
> > > new.//Interesting-
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >> you are the third child and it may explain some of your
> > > thinking
> > > > > > > as I
> > > > > > > > >> find birth order or being an only child has a lot of
> > > influence.
>
> > > > > > > > >> On May 30, 12:53 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >> <mailto:nwte...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > My rather lengthy response has just blown up! My view
> > > is the
> > > > > > > > >> world is
> > > > > > > > >> > a rotten place and 'moral blather' serves more to cover
> > > this up
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > >> > change anything. This is easy enough to say. The
> > > conundrum is
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > >> do
> > > > > > > > >> > know people should live in peace - but to say this is
> > > to
> > > > > > > 'enforce
> > > > > > > > >> > liberalism' - often one of Gabby's points - one that is
> > > found
> > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > >> > Lyotard-Habermas debates. Once ideology is extirpated
> > > as
> > > > > > > Habermas
> > > > > > > > >> > wanted, one must act on what is left. How do we know
> > > this isn't
> > > > > > > > >> just
> > > > > > > > >> > a rationalist fantasy? Even the Nazi's self-justified
> > > as
> > > > > > > > >> "rational".
> > > > > > > > >> > Habermas had been caught up in the Hitler youth as a
> > > kid (as we
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > >> > would if German at the time), but was as anti-Nazi as
> > > any
> > > > > > > > >> intellectual
> > > > > > > > >> > could be. He wanted us to act against and ideal-type
> > > free
> > > > > > > speech
> > > > > > > > >> > situation where only the power of Reason was in play.
> > > The key
> > > > > > > > >> problem
> > > > > > > > >> > with this is there are no rational humans. Habermas
> > > knew this -
> > > > > > > > >> hence
> > > > > > > > >> > the 'ideal-type' (which comes from Max Weber). Once
> > > you know
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> > rational in any totality you are doomed to act in
> > > accordance as
> > > > > > > > >> their
> > > > > > > > >> > can be no decision (there may be alternatives as in
> > > > > > > quadrilateral
> > > > > > > > >> > equations with two solutions). This itself may be no
> > > more than
> > > > > > > > >> > 'rational terror' (and of course just another control
> > > group
> > > > > > > > >> pretending
> > > > > > > > >> > to be objective but really acting on their hidden
> > > agenda).
>
> > > > > > > > >> > I have little doubt science
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário