This is a test of my offensive Avatar Image

[Fence_Sitter]

wow your office worker is dancing to my house music...

[Necronomicon]

How do you like my new, offensive avatar image? It gets me hot just too look at it, and has dimensions of 6.5" x 5.5". For Big Boys only!!

 

Don't forget that Saddam tried to assasinate G. B. in 1993 during his vists to Kuwait. Can you say "Family Vendetta"? Say goodbye to your 18yr old neices and nephews as they go die in the burning sands of Arabia trying to settle a "Family Vendetta". Hatfield v. McCoy?

[iain]

must be listening to some eurotrash kick bass techno or something.

[Fence_Sitter]

max graham...

[MtnGoat]

"Sure, humans are capable of rational thinking, but surely you must realize that people do not always take the most rational action."

 

Of course they don't. But the fact remains that it's *they* who decide to take the action, using their own judgements, however faulty someone else finds them. Wether or not people make decisions someone *else* considers rational in their personal acts is not the issue.

 

Free individuals own the right to make stupid, fucked up decisions. We are not chattel, we do not need others to be our mommies on their own say so, no matter how well intentioned they think they are.

 

"But you don't control your morals! Maybe you are talking about adults here, adults with a particularly focused bent on controlling every thought in their heads."

 

Of course I am talking about adults, and not just focussed ones. Wether or not one decide to examine their morality in detail, one still has one and one is still capable of changing it. What worries me here is IMO you keep making arguments where you seem to deny other humans own the right to make their own judgements and act on them. Even not caring about ones actions is in fact a moral choice.

 

"Children certainly do not control the formation of their value structure. At the very least, we generally refuse to allow them that control, for fear of the irrational decisions they will make."

 

Yes, that's how we treat children, and it's as it should be. Adults however are adults.

 

"People can make choices to have certain values, but in the end it's action that matters, and certainly the anecdotal evidence of the futility of reason in the face of extreme circumstances (hereafter referred to as "world history") destroys your concept of a perfectly rational humanity!"

 

I don't think so. Rationality as a process does not imply certain decisions, especially ones containing value judgement. We may not agree with the structure of that rationality, or the basis for it, or the outcome, but with every decision the human mind is running what it thinks is it's rational engine and using it to make decisions.

 

Wether or not those decisions are something I agree with does not mean reason has not taken place, unless it is a decision concerning purely objective content which is rare. I do not claim humans are rational by each others standards, as you and I agree others do make stupid decisions by ours. Regardless of that, their rational mind is still extant and they still own the right to use it without me sitting in judgement because their lives are *their* lives.

"Shit, just last week I hit the snooze bar too many times and wound up late to a commitment, even though every rational moral fiber in me raged at the thought of being late."'

 

And who held the responsibility for this? Someone else? Nope, you do.

 

"It *wants* to grab your attention, and when a person's attention is tugged at, something registers in the brain."

 

We agree on this, but I don't see how it becomes an argument people cannot be trusted, or are pawns, as I've already made the point that a) we excerise final control and b) we've dealt with people selling things for millenia.

 

"My brain makes my decisions, obviously, but my consciousness is not in control over all of those decisions."

 

No, only the ones where you make decisions about what to do. That's the sphere of argument here, the rational mind.

 

I ask you to comment please, are all these points just observations of what influences us, or arguments on why other humans should be subject to your protections for them even if they disagree?

 

[ 09-20-2002, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Necronomicon]

You weak sods are allowing this thread to die a slow death. I can't be held responsible.

 

[ 09-20-2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Necronomicon ]

[layton]

You'll need that lil' device if climbing w/necronomicon. Keeps the bears out too.

[MtnGoat]

Handy for climing with Nec? Do you use it as a pacifier? In which end?

[allthumbs]

That's a butt plug, moron.

[MtnGoat]

Why do you think I said which end? I should have added, does he like it clean, or...?

 

[ 09-20-2002, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[lizard_brain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trask:

That's a butt plug, moron.

---

Looks like you've done your research.

 

[Necronomicon]

That's a "butt-plug"? I had no idea! Thanks, Trask, for bringing your experience to bear on this occassion. I kind of knew, from your posts. We could all tell. It's cool, though, so you shouldn't feel bad. You might have to switch party affiliations, though, the GOP doesn't tolerate your type.

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trask:

That's a butt plug, moron.

---

actually it looks like one of those pen holders they have on the desk at the bank

 

Offensive Ava'teryx Image on Saturday

[j_b]

quote:

---

When you make me hire a person I don't want to hire, by law, you are threatening me with the same act you don't want me threatening Iraqis with. You don't want me aiming guns at them, but you support aiming guns at me.

---

oh please. You are in serious need of introducing a little nuance in your thinking. Being able to compare 2 things in one respect does not mean they are equivalent (it's not very good science by the way). For example jaywalking and murder are comparable insofar as they are both against the rules interpreting the social contract, yet we agree they are not met with the same punishment because their impact on society is very different. Breach of the social contract is to a certain extent met differently according to culture yet I don't think you'd go as far associating yourselves with those cultures that compare stealing one's neighbors apples with murdering his children. So yes, I do feel entitled to having someone enforce laws for me yet I still feel that if you are calling for the death of thousands of individuals on either side of the fence you should be ready to vote with your feet (and I don't mean paying taxes).

 

quote:

---

Are we operating from an unknown standard where we assume all races sexes or groups or religions will randomly distibute themselves perfectly into every area of life?

---

no we are not, yet whenever we observe an uneven distribution we should strive to infer its reasons for being so as well as the consequences. In this case lower than the mean socio-economic status leads to a higher risk of loosing one's life.

 

quote:

---

you have lost me now, evidence of what? If you think this indicates something is wrong, we do not understand each other here. When did making threatening statements become protected to the extent they cannot be investigated?

---

do you have conclusive evidence as to their making threatening statements? no, yet you already concluded they were guilty and should pay in some fashion (despite the obviously ridiculous scenario of having terrorists discuss their plans for everyone to hear). Ergo, you discard your high principles when you see fit.

 

quote:

---

Who said anything about cops? You don't pay closer attention to someone, avoid eye contact, etc? talk about hyperbolic leaps!

---

come on. You were justifying calling the law, not avoiding eye contact.

[j_b]

well, if you persist in attempting to demonstrate that police enforcing jaywalking rules (for example) legitimizes your use of an army to point guns at an entire people without your having to commit more than tax dollars, be my guest (in your persistance that is). In an argument like this, the trick is not to throw the baby with the bath water.

[MtnGoat]

"well, if you persist in attempting to demonstrate that police enforcing jaywalking rules (for example) legitimizes your use of an army to point guns at an entire people without your having to commit more than tax dollars, be my guest (in your persistance that is)."

 

It doesn't legitimize the policy itself, it does legitimize the means. I make the policy case based as above in previous posts, I legitimize the means by noting you too support the use of weapons by your proxies against other humans for your own reasons.

 

Tell me your reasons are higher and better, whatever, but don't claim you aren't in full support of threatening whom you see fit because it simply isn't true.

 

"In an argument like this, the trick is not to throw the baby with the bath water."

 

I am attempting to keep them separate, but you keep tying means together with policy, in order to validate your use of coecercion for your ends,while denying others use of it for ends you don't like.

 

You've already explicitly bought into the use of threats and violence by the acceptance of enforcing laws using these means.

 

You seem reluctant to admit this because of how much this calls into question about a system based on coercion of others, especially when said coercions extend past lines delineated by personal ownership and self determination and into areas where these principles do not apply.

 

Which is precisely the point here. You want laws enforced but you will not answer why your proxies are OK but mine are not. You see my reasons as suspect and illegitimate and yours as perfectly acceptable, yet will not address the fact that you are as arbitrary as I am, which I at least freely admit.

 

Further, you fail to answer why your proxies only require your tax dollars and mine require my personal presence, when the actual implementation of both our policies rests on the same basis, threats. Somehow you exempt yourself from personal action on behalf of your beliefs and yet demand it from me.

 

[ 09-23-2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[j_b]

quote:

---

It doesn't legitimize the policy itself, it does legitimize the means.

---

This is exactly your problem. You can't see how the means determine policy. Would our policies be the same if policymakers had to enforce them?

[MtnGoat]

"This is exactly your problem. You can't see how the means determine policy. Would our policies be the same if policymakers had to enforce them?"

 

I see how means determines policy with regard to voluntary vs non voluntary means, yes. Voluntary means depend on enticement, involuntary means depends on threats.

 

I am speaking with regard to involuntary policy, which again, always arrives at the same point in enforcement. Something you simply do not appear to be willing to face.

 

As for would our policies be the same if policymakers had to carry them out, of course not.

 

Your support of social policies empowered by threats would be substantially different if *you*, the policymaker, had to show up and personally tell each person you disagree with that they were going to do as you say, for reasons you find sufficient, to make society how you want it to be regardless of their wishes, while they look at you personally threatening them with loss of their liberty by reason of physical threat.

 

Everything you support is backed by "or else". Physically, directly taking their self determination because you say so, in person, and having to explain why their values don't count as much as yours, would make policies a lot different, yup.

 

I don't pass the buck and claim someone else is a policymaker to get around my squeamishness at using force, because I as the person who legitimizes proxies am the *real* policymaker in a democracy. My legislators are my proxies just as much as any cop is, this is the point of democracy. I do not get a pass by calling someone else a policymaker when the entire system is rooted in what each of us support. This is precisely why I am very, very reticent about the use of coercion.

 

I appreciate your willingness to carry one here, it's pretty entertaining IMO, but your reluctance to admit what the basis of enforcement of compulsory programs is and take this into account, shows a refusal to examine the totality of what you support. Still you have not answered why your proxies need only your cash to aim guns for you, but mine need me to do so personally.

 

[ 09-23-2002, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Uncle_Tricky]

In the mountains the shortest way is from peak to peak: but for that one must have long legs. This cloud which I see beneath me, this blackness and gravity at which I laugh--this is your thundercloud. Thus spoke Zarathustra.

[Necronomicon]

quote:

---

This is exactly your problem. You can't see how the means determine policy. Would our policies be the same if policymakers had to enforce them?

---

Let's ask President Pretzelchoke what he was doing during the Vietnam war. Compare his "policies" to the inclinations of Colin Powell, who served in Vietnam. Which is the War-Monger? Powell is certainly not a hawk, but Shithead is. Hmmm...

[Uncle_Tricky]

Whoever climbs high mountains laughs at all the tragic plays and tragic seriousness. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough, profound and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity--through him all things fall. Not by wrath does one kill but by laughter. Come, let us kill the spirit of gravity! Thus spoke Zarathustra.

[MtnGoat]

So now we are only to accept the comments of those who have served in war, on war?

 

I guess this rules out a lot of people and places only military folks in positions of policymaking and applicability on all matters military. Good idea!

[Uncle_Tricky]

Not only one sun had set for me. A path that ascended defiantly through stones, malicious, lonely, not cheered by herb or shrub. Upward--defying the spirit of gravity, my devil and archenemy. You threw yourself up high, but evey stone that is thrown must fall. Sentanced to yourself and your own stoning. Thus spoke Zarathustra.

[Dru]

23 Pagetop Skidoo

[Uncle_Tricky]

With both feet I stand firmly on ground, on eternal ground, on hard primeval rock, on this highest hardest primeval mountain range to which all the winds come. And even though what I do up here is folly, is it still better than if I became solemn down there from waiting? Here ye high on the hill I be a swaggering wrathsnorter, a holy howling storm out of the mountains, an impatient one who shouts down into the valleys: "listen up or I shall whip you with the scourge of god and eat ye provisions!"

 

Thus spoke Zarathustra------->

 

[ 09-23-2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Uncle Tricky ]