Jump to content

Stonehead

Members
  • Posts

    1372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stonehead

  1. Stonehead

    Fairness

    In some fictional scenairo set in the future some scientists will suggest "laws" such as the -3/2 thinning law to guide global population to some sustainable level. Here, some individuals who have more value than others will be spared the culling out as the rest perish. The "tallest plants" will survive whereas the smaller plants will die.
  2. Stonehead

    Fairness

    I would think that when evolutionary scientists tread into the area of sociobiology then all sorts of seemingly anthropic notions could be suggested as applicable to human society. E.O. Wilson comes to mind with his work on insects. And, by extension to politics or economics, this can be taken to the extreme to justify all sorts of policy directives. If it’s observed in nature especially in other mammals then it’s taken as a natural law. But, it would be interesting to see when the “lizard” brain overrules the “mammal” brain. Some of the findings that delves out of the field laboratory and into the inner space of the human mind appears promising as recent research in neuromarketing shows. Should you be concerned if free will becomes an illusion? Jeremy Rifkin sees the positive side, [video:youtube]v=l7AWnfFRc7g whereas others see it differently. [video:youtube]v=Xbp6umQT58A
  3. Stonehead

    Fairness

    I believe some of the new atheists such as Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris refer to these studies to support their belief that morality is derived from nature and in opposition to what is asserted by religion. What might be even more interesting is the phenomenon of cheating and how to address that problem in any society. Did religion and its close cousin, law, derive partially from this basis? Is the fundamental basis of fairness ensured by some system of accountability and punishment? In other words, the recognition alone of fairness is not enough to ensure justice, no?
  4. Heh, doncha know? Monied interests benefit from the perpetuation of the military-industrial complex. Sound conspiratoral? Well, is it really only ideology or is that just their cover? Do some governments function like well organized criminal gangs with a veneer of legitimacy, you know, things like open elections, etc.? The North Koreans just do it more blatantly. And their bosses in China call the shots.
  5. Is it true? The slaves becoming the master? The master becoming the slave? ...Peace and war as the bookends of history and everything else falls in between where the stories of markets and money reside? Debt: The first five thousand years Or, are you saying that the only story here is the one concerning responsibility and irresponsibility?
  6. For all you know Anwar al-Awlaki is a CIA plant. And this incident speaks more to the proposed legislation by Senator Lieberman which would strip US citizens of their rights if accused of aiding or abetting terrorism. What good would the Constitution and its Bill of Rights be if Congress passes a law that trumps the spirit of those founding documents? Could that legislation be corrupted to serve as a political tool for repression? Lieberman bill would strip suspects' citizenship So, I suppose that the goals of the civilian populace are subordinate to the military agenda and that the deeper meaning of 3rd Amendment to the Bill of Rights is actually an arcane bit of nonrecurring history. Military tribunals will bring the justice we seek!
  7. I must be a dumbshit or terribly confused because I feel uneasy about the implications of this first step. The war on terror much like its cousin, the war on drugs, is open-ended with no reasonable end in sight. Both are used as justifications for changes such as the rise of a surveillance society with its attendant domestic and global militarization. Assassinations banned by executive order? Fine. Targeted killings are legally allowed under authorization provided by an act of Congress. But think about it. This governing entity has the power to compel you to do many things but so does a mugger with a gun and like a mugger it can force you to do things against your will. The salient question should be: Does Congress ever overstep its legitimate authority? Does this body exceed its authority when passing legislation, in other words, will their dictates always pass constitutional muster? [The same goes for the Executive Branch, if not more so.] Oh that’s right, the judicial branch is tasked with determining the constitutionality of the laws. They’re on the job. Right… There were times during the Bush Administration when it appeared that we were no longer a nation under the rule of law but rather under the control of a cabal of men bent on pursuing their narrow agenda. Because, what does it mean when the legality of something hinges on the definition of “reasonable”? Warrantless surveillance? That’s fine, it was considered reasonable, thus legal so no pending lawsuits to hold anyone accountable. And torture? So, what is the evidence that the imam is actively plotting attacks against the US? Oh, that’s right again, it’s an issue of national security. Transparency and openness in government are signs of weakness which the enemy can exploit. But, is he really on the hit list because his words speak with a dissident voice which some call an inspiration to jihad? How far would we go to silence those voices of opposition and what opinions would warrant a death sentence? But more importantly, will any officials who were in the administration be held legally culpable for policy that may not be constitutionally sound? But hey, it’s all a matter of interpretation and might makes right. We’ve been witness to a series of seismic events during the last 15 years or so which have ushered in momentous changes in the behavior of this republic. It seems that many of the actions performed by the administrations have been designed to elicit particular responses which fall within a range of prediction. And maybe it’s unjustified paranoia when one feels the unveiling of something that resembles what could be called a totalitarian democracy.
  8. Is there a new Mike Myers' movie? I thought "So I married an axe murderer" was one his best. [video:youtube]zCrT96QJBfQ
  9. Yes, well research by this anthropologist (PATHWAYS TO AND FROM VIOLENT EXTREMISM: THE CASE FOR SCIENCE-BASED FIELD RESEARCH )suggests intervention with some alternate type of engagement to de-radicalize youth. Scott Atran's thesis runs counter to the common conception of Islam as the hotbed for radicalism. Rather, the impetus appears to be various factors which lead to marginalization and Islam instead of solely being the problem can actually yield solutions.
  10. Skinny red-headed kid, not to be confused with queer Usage: Man that kid is such a quire
  11. Hey, as someone with a bit of Neanderthal genes, I resent all this disparging talk about the inferiority of Neanderthals. It's downright racist, you racist prick trolls.
  12. TEH INTERNETS WILL FREEE US ALL!!!!1
  13. Yeah, all this talk of colonialism etc sounds so 20th Century. It’s globalism today. I’m gonna pull a bunch of shit outta my ass here but I’d venture to say that it’s one part secularism and two parts technology. The reason I say this is that the enlightenment didn’t necessarily seek to eradicate religion in favor of atheism. There is value in religion. Look around you at the the transformative power of technology. It is our hope and simultaneously our peril. Our culture produced the atomic bomb, the jet fighter, the drones, etc. etc. It also produced the Green Revolution, medical advances, etc. Our values are being rewritten by the social changes directly or indirectly related to technological change. I’d also venture to say that the reaction from the Muslim world is similar (but in different degree) to what is experienced elsewhere. In the West, the effect is sublimated, for some react positively to technology whereas others see it primarily as the Destroyer. The challenges of the human condition will not be solved despite technology. Rather, the radical vision being enacted is that the human will be changed through technology and the world along with us. In Richard Clarke’s Breakpoint, a battle waged between transhumanists and terrorist-fundamentalist Luddites. You can see the incipient form of that conflict now. The resulting causality might turn out to be individual liberty as our society morphs into a global technological totalitarianism. Perhaps, it’s quite a long way off for most of the world but the intention and the means are becoming manifest. It’s no longer a will ‘o wisp utopian dream. One only needs to peruse Ray Kurzweil’s website to see this ( http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1 ). Here’s his vision: I'm Confident About Energy, the Environment, Longevity, and Wealth; I'm Optimistic (But Not Necessarily Confident) Of the Avoidance Of Existential Downsides; And I'm Hopeful (But Not Necessarily Optimistic) About a Repeat Of 9-11 (Or Worse) by Ray Kurzweil I don’t necessarily see conflict as the solution. What some call appeasement might better be called willful restraint for our own sake. We need to turn that microscope back on ourselves and let our ethics catch up with the technological change.
  14. And the initial person of interest was some 40yo, white guy who appeared in surveillance footage taking off his sweater.
  15. Ruger Arms Inc. Prescott, AZ. Just picked up another one last week. i guess handguns are useful if you're planning some domestic terrorism. or if you just need to have a weapon concealed on your person because you never know when you might need to knock over a 7-11 or a bank. Arizona to allow concealed weapons without permit
  16. Don't ya know. All the world's a stage and it's only a showdown between good and evil. [video:vimeo]10896301
  17. Why would a bot have tits?
  18. fallacy??? thought we were channeling jim morrison - should i switch to a different channel? i guess i shoulda offered to rape me ma on second thought... I thought the key part about Oedipus was the guilt felt after the revelation, so much so that he gouged his eyes out.
  19. So in one tradition the combined effect of the renaissance, enlightenment, etc has resulted a constellation of forces that has compelled the faithful to progressively abandon the most backwards and barbaric injunctions in their holy texts by this point in history, and in another you literally take your life in your hands if do so too loudly. Funny, the writer in the above article referred to the condition as “holy amnesia” and seemed to suggest that Islam is on a different timeline than, say, Christianity. Why do we have holy amnesia? Do we experience more social outlets for venting frustration, fear, and doubt? Should we propose that the Middle Easterners do as we do and find more time for leisure pursuits rather than confining their outrage to a narrow channel? More television? More internet? More free love? More bolting?? Is what we consider the progressive spirit inhabiting our contemporary mental model introducing doubt rather than certainty as the central condition in their worldview? And, is fundamentalism and perhaps extremism a likely response to the challenges from the secular scientific mindset that is assaulting their traditional structures? What happens when you uproot people from their traditional moorings? Who can say where the wind blows and where it will go in the future? ---------------------------------------------------------------- As far as the timing of this media event, does it foreshadow one likely development of the following: Bunker Busters Shipped to Diego Garcia: Imminent Attack or Strategic Move?
  20. “Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured.” --Thucydides I was reading last night about Saint-Just and Robespierre and their deaths. They firmly believed in the ideals of the Enlightenment, yet their fervor to advance their revolution became their downfall. At some point, the propagation of Enlightenment ideals will cause the positive aspects to become negative. Are we justified in believing that the world should adopt Enlightenment ideals against their cultural history? And this, at the point of the sword? But right, we’re not the aggressor. Or are we? I wouldn’t be so quick to judge this issue as simply as an offensive cartoon. It’s more like an onion….lots a layers to it. All I know is that the sayings of a long dead guy seem apt. “War is a violent teacher.”--Thucydides [Not a response to what you said, as much as a response in general to this thread]
×
×
  • Create New...