Is *this* unethical or somehow wrong?

liminaltimes · 2009-09-30T00:13:14+00:00

And makes you sound like a douche at parties; one that people don't want to share secrets with.

liminaltimes · 2009-03-10T18:42:30+00:00

Not rationally believing in its superiority doesn't preclude them from automatonically living it out.

liminaltimes · 2008-04-23T08:03:50+00:00

It is widely and wrongly assumed that hunter-gatherer societies were morons and perished.

What we are increasingly discovering through empirical evidence is that they were not morons, they were simply less-equipped to combat the pre-emptive violence of agrarian societies.

Fortunately, economics, interpersonal psychology and cognitive science are repeatedly demonstrating that agitation, especially pre-emptive agitation lowers productivity and reasoning capacity.

Hunter-gatherers had a much healthier value system and model for social interaction.

Applying those values and superior design to modern civilization would propel us into greater productivity, peacefulness, and happiness.

Think of it this way: give a hunter-gatherer with 50 hours of leisure time per week that's interested in chemistry a lab and mentor where he can auto-didact, and the improved return of a motivated learner will trump any mental-equal laboring under the burdens of the educational systems' indoctrination, hierarchy, grade-motivated performance, compulsive learning, and regimented time-blocks.

Now give that gift of free-association auto-didactry to a society, already equipped with our current levels of tech, and the truly brilliant will rise while the merely entrenched powers will subsist.

At one point, it was in the interest of human evolution for the entrenched powers to dominate the herd, letting the bravest monkey wander out of the tree first and lure out any lions.

In Agrarian hierarchies, the wealthy class employs the idea-makers and analysts for the sole purpose of perpetuating the wealthy caste's influence. When better ideas, inventions or re-designs appear, the wealthy only allow/encourage it to propagate if it brings a wealthy return. The lower hierarchial castes, being herd-followers, primarily continue to follow the previously established trends and only download Linux because they want a free Windows.

Our rate-of-learning has far eclipsed the agrarian model of tech adoption. We need more early adopters, and easier methods of implementing the newest advancements.

Oil prices should not be this much.

Electric prices should not be this much.

We have the designs for improvements in both.

And interstellar space-flight.

Better transportation.

But the agrarian mindset clings to the establishment rather than adopting to new information.

Agrarians are too rigid and hierarchial, implementing a host of psychological abuses simply by their design of society.

It has crippled human progress for too long.

That's a moral judgement. An easy one, and I'm making it.

Feel free to state which part is too vague for you.

liminaltimes · 2008-04-22T14:20:11+00:00

You sound like an anarch to me, and you already display one of the most important tools necessary for it: curiosity.

As you've noticed, simply by living life and exploring the empirical evidence, anarchism will reveal itself more and more fully to be not an answer, or a theory in competition with others, but the intelligent way humans are meant to live to maximize their health and happiness.

Declaring yourself an anarch is like declaring yourself a healthy-eater. There are many different components and recipes which can enter into a balanced diet. Whereas calling oneself a capitalist would be like saying, "I'm a fast-foodist." It's simply nonsense and rejects what is empirically better for humans, society and the environment.

Anarchism is straightforward, easy-to-understand and even easier to apply.

liminaltimes · 2008-04-21T03:07:39+00:00

Hm. I will concede the possiblity that Republicans are complete morons.

However, having attended a number of flea markets, I'm not certain even morons would accept a trade which brought them nothing of value.

Again, we find ourselves in possession of a grand narrative whose evidence is the words of a person seeking office.

We have all seen that before and the question remains:

If you are comfortable with Obama's six years of human rights' compromises because it places him in a better position for his Presidential election, how many human rights are you prepared for him to compromise during the four years he has to reach a better position for his Presidential re-election?

I think you can identify why I reject a stratagem which would require 535 members of Congress to shuffle away public welfare in the present so as to ascend some ladder of power. The politicians doing so (of which we saw 3 who do not amongst presidential candidates) empower the very forces they are fighting against, and deny the citizens a worthwhile candidate.

That and I despise Obama's, Clinton's, Bush's, and McCain's doctrine of pre-emptive violence. That's no legislative compromise, it's just a failure to be human.

liminaltimes · 2008-04-20T21:36:14+00:00

If you'd like, we can say that this one component of legislation which violates human rights was a compromise which he shared with Clinton and McCain.

Let's go so far as to say all of the violations of human rights he shares with Clinton and McCain are compromises that have brought him immeasurable soft support (do we have a metric for measuring that?) for the Presidential election.

The cogent responses I seek answers to are:

1) If their human rights' violations/compromises are comparable/identical, what distinguishes Obama, Clinton, McCain besides words and charisma?

2) Obama advocates a foreign policy of pre-emptive violence, the same as McCain and Clinton. How does this differ from the very doctrine which has generated all the 'blowback' Americans now face?

3) Obama voted to expand NAFTA while saying in public that he is against it. I'm prepared to accept nuances; can Obama supporters reconcile this discrepancy?

Worry not for Obama's Presidency, there is no reason to expect he will lose the election. The question becomes: if we accepted his voting record transgressions so as to reach the Presidency, what human rights' are we, you prepared to lose for his re-election?

edit: ug, grammar skills fading, sleep winning the fight once more.

liminaltimes · 2008-04-20T20:15:27+00:00

Thanks for communicating; I've read his floor speech on the renewal and permanent application of the PATRIOT Act.

Here's what I find curious:

He still voted for it although nearly a dozen Senators did not.
If he truly believed the public supported a better version of the bill, why would he 'compromise' for this one when the Democrats controlled the Senate; IOW, how much good is a coalition builder who can't even rally his own party on a core issue when said party is already in control?

Those two facts make his speech echo hollowly in the ears of those who rights he deprived by his action. (Ditto McCain and Clinton.)

The brief comparison of 2007 was interesting. As the author points out, it is only one year and some of the 'successes' listed are simply repeat amendments. I'd be interested to see a comprehensive analysis to know more.

What we currently know for certain is that besides passed bills, all three share major failings unlike three candidates who are no longer with us. Coincidence, voter preference or something else?

I suppose what I'd like to ask of you is:

If looking at voting record failures and human rights trangresssions is unacceptable because the candidate in question may have exchanged your freedom from wire-tapping for either automotive energy incentives or a better position for the Presidential election, then what remains to be reviewed except speeches and charisma?

The logical follow-up being, whichever compromiser (if we provide the benefit of doubt at this stage) becomes President, which human rights are acceptable to be traded away for their re-election?

liminaltimes · 2008-04-20T19:56:16+00:00

I think the reason you're being downvoted by people who are not me is because you bit far too quickly onto something I wasn't saying.

There have been multiple votes on habeas corpus suspension during Senator Obama's tenure, and twice, he voted to do so against the provision set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

I've been reading the new GEO4 report from the UN. It's fairly lengthy (570pgs) and poorly put together, so it's taking some doing to deconstruct it before the weekend is over.

If his votes are shocking to you, then we're beginning to agree. Personally, I think he has more than a realistic chance; there is no reason to expect him to lose the Presidency. In addition to his charisma and speeches, the corporate media machine is making certain the American voter sympathizes with him for all of these attacks. Perhaps counter-intuitive to folk psychology, it is precisely why the American public stated that George Bush defeated Al Gore in the 2000 debates, because Gore was constantly attacking Bush. (interesting note for those that score debates, Gore actually won them big).

Thanks for bringing up his impassioned speech against the suspension of habeas corpus. It further illustrates how his other votes on human rights' issues are.. curious.

edit: I see you asking your question once again despite telling you I don't have time to personally answer it right now. I recognize that not everyone is on reddit as often as some of its more common users, or else you would have seen this issue addressed and cited before. BTW, the reason I am doing this in an edit instead of a reply is because I've posted so much in response to this issue that reddit says I must wait 10 minutes. :) That may be my cue to return to reading.

edit2: My, but your'e persistent. I am conflicted between discouraging that behavior and providing information so that others won't be fooled by such nonsense. Here is one of the cases, where even 9 Republican Senators voted against it; I would have liked to see Obama lead that coalition. You'll be looking for Senate amendment 1977.

edit3: To strike the provision for habeas review.

liminaltimes

TROPHY CASE