Evil by Geezer

Quote:
evil when he faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident

Signy,

Not faked. Johnson misrepresented the incident as being a military clash between the US and the VC, which it was not. It was some incident involving a fishing boat or something. But he didn't fake or creat an incident in the sense that Winston Churchill created the incident with the Lusitania. It's a minor distiction, in the end, Johnson knew that he was lying, and he lied to get us into the war.

Objectively, I'd say Johnson was much evil-er than the gulf of tonkin incident alone betrays.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The purpose of a corporation is to provide services to the people.

No it isn't.

Quote:
Sure, there is a competition, a race to provide even better services to help more people.

Bollocks. Corporations have no interest in 'helping people'. They provide a service only where such a thing provides profit, profit is what corporations want, not to help people like fuzzy-happy altruistic organisations as you'd like to paint them.

Quote:
But it's not to stomp out competition. That happens, sure, but it's a corruption, it's not the core idea. In a healthy capitalistic society like we used to have, when someone behaves in this manner, the system pulls them back into line or breaks them up.

Large Multinational Corporations have no place in a healthy Capitalist society, but they and the Corporatist society they foster are the enevitable result of Capitalism, which is one of the reasons why Capitalism needs to be ballanced by Socialism and vice versa.

Quote:
But to characterize social programs as charity is a gross distortion. Social programs are about control, social engineering, design and manipulate. They're far less of charity than Al Qaeda. Charity is when you give selflessly without strings or motivation. In America, social programs never fit this bill, and I doubt they often do so elsewhere.

No to characterize social programs as less charity than a terrorist organisation is a gross distortion. Actually it's more than that, its utter lunacy.

Lets pick a social program, the dol. Supports people looking for work and helps to find employment. Yes very insidious and evil, EVIL I tells ya.

The gross distortion is trying to portray corporations as perfectly altruistic happy bunnies hop hop hopping through happy capitalist land helping people and handing out 'wowy-pops'.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:32 AM

Righteous,

Not arguing "democrats are more evil than republicans" I think there are points in US history in which one could argue this point solidly, but this isn't one of those points.

Democrat lack of spine doesn't prevent them from having big wars, again, look at the historical record. The US is several times more likely to go to war with a democrat at the helm.

I can argue that in one respect Clinton did more harm than Bush: He killed more people, both directly and indirectly. Sure, Bush did more damage to the institution of America (Clinton did plenty) But this is largely because he was standing on Clinton's shoulders (a) ie, Clinton had pushed it X-far, and so Bush could push it Y-far, because he had Clinton as a precedent, but also (b) Bush had a friendly congress. Clinton's greatest evil tilt was when he had congress in the first two years. After that, he was still evil, but more subdued because he had to compromise occassionally. Bush has had a solid grip on both houses, and so there has been little compromising of the agenda.

I have a big laundry list on Clinton, starting with WACO, but more importantly, sanctions on Iraq, gun-running to bosnia, bombing of several countries, vetoing the rwanda resolution (15 days or so into the conflict) and later, throwing more guns at the problem. Objectively, though, if you go digging in these people's pasts, you find that Clinton, like Bush, was seriously evil on a personal level long before he was president. Someone like Charles Manson is really a penny ante player next to these guys, totally morally bankrupt individuals.

And, on Kerry, I can't say definitively that things would have been worse. I was rationalizing the position of "why would the people vote to re-elect george bush?" Well, my point was, there wasn't a lot of choice. Kerry hadn't set him up as the peace candidate or the pro-business prosperity candidate, which imho are probably the two best ways to win an election. He was too busy playing tough guy, like bush.

Look at the past party-switch elections

Harding - peace platform
FDR - prosperity platform
Eisenhower - peace platform
Kennedy - charisma platform
Nixon - peace-ish platform
Carter - peace platform
Reagan - prosperity platform
Clinton - prosperity platform
Bush Jr - Jesus platform

If Kerry had promised to settle in iraq, and not "fight to win the peace" and had a real convincing plan to increase prosperity rather than "roll back tax cuts" than he probably would have gotten those extra couple million votes he would have needed to win.

Heinlein said "it's not your opponent that loses you the election, it's you're own supporters who stay home because you failed to convince them to come out"

Or as Al Sharpton said "*Who* wins the election doesn't really matter, what matters is *what* wins the election" meaning, the platform. The Kerry platform lost the election. Doesn't make Kerry evil. A different Kerry platform probably would have won, but that's not what the Kerry backers, his silent partners, wanted.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
A few posts ago you defined evil as "...a few people depriving many others of their needs, not for betterment for everybody but for special privileges for a few." Now it's results-oriented, and doesn't depend on the objectives of one's actions, just the effects.

There's no inconsistancy between those statements. But I should have expressed my opinion more clearly: Evil is a few people depriving many others of their needs RESULTING IN special privileges of a few. Perhaps its because I know so many kids with neurologically-bsed behavior problems, but I'm one of the few people on the board (perhaps Rue is another) who thinks that motivation should play little or no part in judging a person's actions. A person's basic motivation, their ability to judge and control their own behavior, usual intoxication status, ability think ahead and predict results in a broader context is visible through repeated actions over time. That's why I think there should be no such crime as "murder". I think the charge should be "causing the death of another" and then sentencing that person depending on their cumulative record. (which BTW G Bush would fail miserably.)

Another comment tho- One of the uses of the word "evil" is to trigger moral outrage and punishment. Personally, I'm not so much into retribution. But I think BELIEF SYSTEMS can be evil and evil belief systems should get the death penalty.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident didn't "cause" the war in Vietnam. But it was a major reason for the escalation that followed. Johnson knowingly hid key facts about the incident from the public, including the mitigating ircumstances that (1) We had just hours earlier covertly attacked N Vietnam, and (2) The Maddox had been in North Vietnamese waters just before being attacked. If the public knew the entire circumstances surrounding the incident, they would be far less likely to press for retaliation. It culd have been handled very differently and with a very different outcome.

Quote:
JOHNSON: Uh, the people that are calling me up, I just talked to a New York banker, I just talked to a fellow in Texas, they all feel that the Navy responded wonderfully and that's good. But they want to be damned sure I don't pull 'em out and run, and they want to be damned sure that we're firm. That's what all the country wants because Goldwater's raising so much hell about how he's gonna blow 'em off the moon... Because of the time difference between Washington and the Tonkin Gulf, and the time needed to transmit and receive messages from the remote naval forces involved, this sequence of President Johnson telephone calls on August begins at a moment when Washington was as yet unaware of the claimed second attack. McNamara's statement in the 9:43 AM. conversation that "this ship is allegedly to be attacked tonight" is highly significant-it means that Washington was already operating on the basis of the radio intercepts mistakenly attributed to August 4th. Equally important, LBJ and McNamara discuss retaliatory action against North Vietnam in spite of the fact that no attack has yet occurred.

www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/tapes.htm

Quote:
You then state, "...and his lies cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, with little resulting benefit." seeming to imply that Johnson's lies (lies in your opinion), were the sole cause of the Vietnam war. Pretty sweeping generalization. Again informed by your V, B, and K.

Yes lies, and yes cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And no benefit to anyone that I can see. China did not have imperial ambitions. The immediate follow-on was not a massive invasion by the Chinese into Southeast Asia, nor was there large-scale massacre of South Vietnamese.

One of the beneficiaries of our intervention was, of all people, Pol Pot.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I should have expressed my opinion more clearly: Evil is a few people depriving many others of their needs RESULTING IN special privileges of a few.

As I understand this argument, if two men vote to rob a third, this cannot be evil. After all, the majority of people involved benefited.

Similarly, discrimination against members of a minority group benefits members of the majority.

And what about acts that did not bring any benefit to anybody?

I suspect the honest definition of "evil" would be "a person or act I really dislike".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nah... credit me with a little more thought than THAT!

Are the two men and their families starving? Are the majority depriving a minority of basic needs to meet their "requirements" for luxury and ease? My system presupposes an egalitarian distribuiton of necessities.

Now I know the first thing that libertarians will say is... "But that destroys individual effort! Because if people get what they need regardless of effort, then nobody will do anything!" That's a false assumption of human character. Humans actually have a NEED to be productive because it gives them a sense of control over their environment. I think what destroys individual effort more than anything is to have to labor under someone else's direction and then have the fruits of your labor taken away for someone else's benefit. Nothing destroys the work ethic like slavery. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:41 AM

CYBERSNARK

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Then I read Albert Schwietzer's definition, which was so much better than my own: Good is whatever creates life. Evil is whatever destroys it.

Nice, simple, and to the point.

What about fire? It destroys life and lays waste to everything in its path, but in so doing it clears a path for new growth. Floods, for all the damage they cause to human lives, deposit fresh sediment and fertile soil. A nuke demolishes all complex life in its path, but the radiation tends to be good for plants.

Schweitzer's stance seems to require one to "de-villify" the term "evil." Schweitzer's "evil" isn't a willful force to be stopped, but a necessary force that must exist in balance with what he terms "good."

(Much like how I define the Force in Star Wars as being the manifestation of Creation [the Light Side] and Destruction [the Dark Side]. The Dark Side isn't "evil," it can just lends itself best to destruction, and repays its servants in kind [with disease, scars, and a rapid degenerative death that can only be staved off by further predation], while the Light Side creates and is created by life, which it nurtures and sustains [Jedi tend to live long and healthy lives, and can continue to exist beyond death, sustained by the Force itself]. Neither side can be eliminated, nor should they be; the Dark Side is as vital as the Light.)

Maybe this highlights the semantic problem: the word "evil" can be used for so many different concepts.

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:42 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

double

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:42 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Dreamtrove,

thanks for clearing some of that up.

I would truly be interested in knowing what it was Clinton did when he had both houses backing him that was evil - I'm not doubting it out of hand, just truly wondering if this is an idealogical rift or 'evil' that we can agree upon.

I don't think that saying 'there are points in history when you can say the democratic party was eviler than the republican party' is fair. The Democratic party used to be the regressive party. I know that. I could care less about the frigging title of either party, but about their current and recent platforms, and current values. Right now the democratic party is far more progressive than the Republican party, far more adherant to civil rights, far more about the middle class and the poor.

That being said, many democrats are career politicians working corporate agendas. The difference though, no matter how you slice it, is that they depend upon a voter base that cares about civil rights and social justice. They can't continue to hold office if they lose the more progressive wing of their voters...even if they themselves are machiavelian, they do not have the lee-way to do what a Reupblican congress can.

As I understand it, or heard it, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Johnson lost support from his own party because of vietnam and that was at least part of the reason he didn't run for a second term. I may be wrong here, but I think that's right. I also think its correct that Roosavelt tried to water down the Supreme Court but met with opposition from his own party, and gave up.

You can only stray so far from your platform.

The Bush administration's advantage is that its platform is terror and hate. Hell, when that's what you ran on, your base will let you get away with...well, murder.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:00 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: A few posts ago you defined evil as "...a few people depriving many others of their needs, not for betterment for everybody but for special privileges for a few." Now it's results-oriented, and doesn't depend on the objectives of one's actions, just the effects.

SignyM: There's no inconsistancy between those statements.

Excuse me while I state "Bull!"

Quote:
But I should have expressed my opinion more clearly: Evil is a few people depriving many others of their needs RESULTING IN special privileges of a few.

So many people depriving a few of their needs, RESULTING in special privileges for the many isn't evil? It would be alright for everyone else to rob and kill all the red-heads (just an example folks, I'm not a red-headophobe, and not suggesting any anti-red-head movement) and divide the loot?

On the other hand, although a hypothetical politician's presumed lying caused (in your opinion)hundreds of thousands of deaths with no benefit, would his actions not qualify as evil if they resulted in no special privileges for the few?

Maybe you would like to try expressing your opinion even more clearly next time?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh yeah, another "timed out" that was... not!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Excuse me while I state "Bull!" ...
So many people depriving a few of their needs, RESULTING in special privileges for the many isn't evil? It would be alright for everyone else to rob and kill all the red-heads (just an example folks, I'm not a red-headophobe, and not suggesting any anti-red-head movement) and divide the loot? Maybe you would like to try expressing your opinion even more clearly next time?

I already addressed this at length in a previous post. Maybe you would like to try reading my posts and expressing an opinion or your own, instead of playing the Grand Inqusitor? After all, since YOU brought up the whole concept of "evil" and threw the word around like beads at a Mardi Gras parade, I would presume you have SOME sort of informed opinion about the word that you use so liberally!

Or then again... mebbe not! Possibly you have NO coherent thoughts about your own moral sense. Maybe it's just a random mix of what you were trained into in childhood swirled with stochastic experiences and your momentary psychological state... whether you had just had a good meal and a whiskey, whether childhood symbols were involved, if you had a bad experience in the past with some aspect of a current event... the kind of non-thinking that absolves you from any sort of responsibility for your own moral choices, perhaps?

I noticed that when you don't have a rational reply to something I post- about Lyndon Johnson, for example- you get all snarky and personal.

I think I've made more than enough of an effort to have a reasonable discussion with you and you refuse to be part of it, so at this point I see no reason to reply to your posts.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 10:52 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Rolling up a couple of items:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
My system presupposes an egalitarian distribuiton of necessities.

So anyone who puts their self-interest ahead of that of the body politic is evil in YOUR system. Okay.

Quote:
Possibly you have NO coherent thoughts about your own moral sense. Maybe it's just a random mix of what you were trained into in childhood swirled with stochastic experiences and your momentary psychological state... whether you had just had a good meal and a whiskey, whether childhood symbols were involved, if you had a bad experience in the past with some aspect of a current event...

And perhaps that's what you are doing also, to a degree. You've been trying to provide an objective, unambiguous, definition of what you consider evil, and have had to repeatedly modify or clarify it in this thread, based on other people's comments. I doubt that you, or anyone else, can come up with such a definition.

Your perception of evil is personal to you, as is every one else's. Regardless of the logical rules you try to apply, it still based to a large degree on your individual mix of childhood training, experience, and psychological state. Since most of us here have basically the same background(dominated by various splinters of the Judeo-christian ideas of morality) we tend to agree, generally, on what is evil. But since we don't have exactly the same background and psychological makeup, we disagree on the details. Perhaps this opinion puts me in the moral relativist camp.

Quote:
I think I've made more than enough of an effort to have a reasonable discussion with you and you refuse to be part of it...

Interesting. I feel like I've gotten a good bit out of it. I noted coming in that I had plenty of questions and not many answers. Now I still have questions but also have more perspectives to consider.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Originally posted by Cavalier:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
But I should have expressed my opinion more clearly: Evil is a few people depriving many others of their needs RESULTING IN special privileges of a few.

As I understand this argument, if two men vote to rob a third, this cannot be evil. After all, the majority of people involved benefited.

Similarly, discrimination against members of a minority group benefits members of the majority.

And what about acts that did not bring any benefit to anybody?

I suspect the honest definition of "evil" would be "a person or act I really dislike".

Nah... credit me with a little more thought than THAT!

Are the two men and their families starving? Are the majority depriving a minority of basic needs to meet their "requirements" for luxury and ease? My system presupposes an egalitarian distribuiton of necessities.

I was questioning the definition you proposed, which said nothing about the prior distribution of resources. The definition was purely majoritarian: An act is evil if it hurts more people than it helps.

It may be that your opinion is not accurately stated by the definition given above, in which case I can only guess what it is. I suspect your views to be egalitarian: An act is evil if it leaves people more varied in their good or bad fortune. By this argument, the poor may virtuously steal from the rich, as this will lead to less variation among people. Is this your view? If not what is it?

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Now I know the first thing that libertarians will say is... "But that destroys individual effort! Because if people get what they need regardless of effort, then nobody will do anything!" That's a false assumption of human character. Humans actually have a NEED to be productive because it gives them a sense of control over their environment. I think what destroys individual effort more than anything is to have to labor under someone else's direction and then have the fruits of your labor taken away for someone else's benefit. Nothing destroys the work ethic like slavery. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.

I believe the libertarian belief would be that an act is evil if it interferes with someone else’s control over his life and his possessions. Many might allow such an act as punishment for a similar offence against another.

The objection you predicted strikes me as being one from economics. People respond to incentives, so if you destroy their incentives to do X, you get less X. Everyday experience suggests to me that this argument is correct: people do respond to threats of punishment and hopes of reward. You are in effect arguing that this is not so, and I would like to see what evidence leads you think that.

That said, this is a side issue. Even if a society you considered free of evil was impossible, this would not prove your concept of evil useless. We cannot achieve absolute zero, but the concept is still useful.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 1:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I happen to have my own definition, which is firmly based in Pope John XXIII-era Catholicism. But as they say "Your results may vary". And altho I think I can make a coherent case for my ideas of "good" and "evil"' I'm not sure it's really productive to discuss our individual concepts. All we would do is agree on the prevailing mind-set. Or.. not. Maybe we have some Zeusists around!

So perhaps the best way to look at the concept is from a functional/ historical perspective. I come back to the idea of good and evil as an overarching tool of enforcing conformity, and back to the necessity of getting the people to whom applies to "buy into" such a system. In other words, it has to offer something, if only a place in heaven.

So speculating further, one of the interesting things I've noticed about social power- whether military, economic, communications, ideological- is that it inevitably concentrates. The wealthy use their wealth to gather wealth and arms, the well-armed gather greater armies and loot, and ALL of the powerful eventually "shape" the message of "good" (or lawful) to become support for the leader and "evil" (or unlawful) to become opposition. There is no difference betwe
en the Sun God Pharaoh, the Son of God (in the form of the Pope) and the Sun King... the leaders ally themselves with the deities and the moral code as handed down from the gods (or, in the current mind-set of capitalism, as handed down by Nature, which dictates a dog-eat-dog society).

So is there a natural countervening force? I think there are several. Social control and conformity can simply be imposed by fear, whether it is fear of the leader or fear an enemy. (The smart leader creates an enemy, even if none exist.) But there's another countervening force, and that is technology and specialization. It seems to me that as societies become more and more complex... and as the required tasks become too complex to whip people into performing them... the concept of who is due a reward has to become more inclusive.

What say you?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 1:54 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Cavalier - is that you HK? I didn't want to assume.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

In other words, instead of arguing whose puppet strings are prettier, look at the hands holding the strings.

Anybody up for that?

Rue- I'm pretty sure it's not HK.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:57 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

OOOKAAAYYY ...

I'll need to think about your post.

I was thinking of good and evil from a neurological/ evolutionary perspective. Any interaction that causes the release of oxytocin in roughly 80% of people is 'good'.

Added: Here is my thinking. However neurology generates a signal that 'feels good' or 'feels bad', it does do that for all sorts of survival behavior. Hunger and thirst feel bad, eating and drinking feel good. So 'good' and 'bad' are tied to species survival.

In terms of interaction between members of the same species, there are different survival strategies for different species.

For large carnivores like tigers, it's good to have a large territory, therefore they are internally motivated to establish and hold the best and largest area they can. OTOH for birds it's good to share sitting on eggs and keeping them warm, therefore they are motivated to do that.

Primates are positively motivated to cooperate and to reward cooperators. Chimps select good cooperators to befriend, many primates 'punish' cheaters, refuse 'unfair' rewards etc. There seems to be an internal primate system that rewards most individuals for 'good' with the good feelings oxytocin brings. OTOH 'evil' leads to feelings of isolation and stress.

People who have a choice and interact to generate oxytocin are good, those who chose other are evil.

Which leads me to consider that this system selects for evil people. They garner wealth and power over others rather than the rewards of oxytocin. This system selects for them, therefore this system selects for evil people.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:24 PM

Quote:
No it isn't.

Sometimes I wonder if you post just to argue :)

Quote:
Sure, there is a competition, a race to provide even better services to help more people.

Bollocks.

Quote:
Corporations have no interest in 'helping people'.

Then why does money exist? Money is a representation of payment for services rendered. If no services are rendered, then why does money exist?

Quote:
fuzzy-happy altruistic organisations as you'd like to paint them.

It's not altruism, it's a functioning society, designed to reward people who help people by providing goods and services. This is what economics is. That's not an opinion, but an understanding, money was created for this purpose. If it were not so, nothing in economics would make sense.

Quote:
But it's not to stomp out competition. That happens, sure, but it's a corruption, it's not the core idea. In a healthy capitalistic society like we used to have, when someone behaves in this manner, the system pulls them back into line or breaks them up.

Quote:
Large Multinational Corporations have no place in a healthy Capitalist society,

I wouldn't accept a generalization this size, but sure, in general, most of the large corporations we have do not belong in a healthy capitalistic society. Something like Cisco systems belongs, because it's a self-build giant which provides a service in the absence of serious original competitors meaning competitors who have their own way of doing things. Cisco's competitors basically work by copying cisco products and reproducing them. For a long time it was like this with intel also, but lateyl intel competitors are coming up with unique ideas, and intel is losing field dominance, the market is moving to a healthier place.

Quote:
but they and the Corporatist society they foster are the enevitable result of Capitalism,

Capitalism evolves, it sets new rules which change where its headed. At the moment, some has been changing rules to engineer capitalism to head towards this goal. I suspect this someone is a Fascist Corporatist Shachtmanite cabal, which believe in a form of trotsky socialism which they want to morph capitalism into. I'm damn near sure of it. But I accept that there are other types of socialism which are not as bad.

Quote:
No to characterize social programs as less charity than a terrorist organisation is a gross distortion. Actually it's more than that, its utter lunacy.

Al Qaeda is a charity. read up on it. It's also a terrorist organization, it's all in the way in which it is used. But as a charity, it is a real charity. it's not a cover or a money laundering organization, it's actually a charity. Al Qaeda is a communication network, as such, it is neither good nor evil, it is only a tool. It can, and is, used for both good and evil, hence charity and terrorism.

I think I backed the dole. But we don't have it. The dole is my favorite social program I said., logical simple. No problems, unless it funds illicit drug trade. But the dole is hardly a social program at all. When I think social programs I think about govt. agents coming to better people's lives, social workers, head starts, etc. Not evil, that's a stretch, but they are about control, about affecting change in the social order towards a desired goal. So is the employment office.

Quote:
The gross distortion is trying to portray corporations as perfectly altruistic happy bunnies hop hop hopping through happy capitalist land helping people and handing out 'wowy-pops'.

LOL. couldn't stop laughing. with you, not at you. but still, you're a trip. The corporation, sure, is a flawed economic institution, and the human being is a flawed animal. Things evolve. Socialism still looks like intelligent design to me, and I don't see a reason to compromise with it. Yet. I'm not ruling it out, but at the moment I see a long history of liberal academics seeking control over society to mold it into their world view. Mind you, I'm one of the poor rural folk they try to 'help' and atm I wouldn't mind if they stopped. I might be ecstatic about it. And I analyze things pretty objectively. So clearly, something isn't going write if socialism is a fluffy bunny rabbit helping people philosophy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:31 PM

Hmm,

No one sees the beauty in the Schweitzer definition.

Snark,

Sure, it's the sort of thing that would make sense to a Taoist I guess. Fire doesn't have a will, it's not evil. Starting wildfires is evil. I think that a small dose of common sense is needed to understand the world. Those who argue without it operate in a fog of confusion, and use rhetorical devices to pull others into their fog. Common sense tells you that guns kill people, regardless of the semantic arguments used by people against the idea.

In the Yin/Yang the light and dark are complimentary phases, neither right nor wrong. Everything is a balance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:58 PM

Righteous,

Waco, Somalia, the Iraqi Seige, vetoing the Rwanda resolution, these were all early year things. Directly, I'm not sure that control of congress helped Clinton achieve these things, but a president with control of congress is cocky, because he knows he's not going to get impeached. So he does things he might not. Also, the selling our military bases to china and the quartermaster's corps to Halliburton were in this period I believe. I think these all boil down to 1) killing people and 2) betraying america, duties of his job, those who voted for him, etc.

I think we're talking about objective evil. On reason I don't go "democrats equal clinton" is that honestly, there's not a whole lot of clinton policy I can peg down as being arch-typical of democrats. If I think democrats lean towards social programs, liberal values, institutional education, organized labor, state regulation, etc. then it's real hard to look at clinton from an outside perspective, knowing nothing about him other than the policies he actually enacted and say, without question "There's a democrat." If Clinton had been a republican, you guys would not be looking at him and saying "by that guys policies, he should be a democrat" in the very same way that if Bush were a democrat, no one on this side looking at him would say "by that guy's policies, he should be a republican." There's nothing pro-business fiscally conservative, internationalist, limited govt., libertarian or morally upright about george w. bush.

Bush/Clintonism is at the very least something else. I think it's one ideology, neither democrat or republican, but some third thing that lately i've taken to calling 'globalist'.

Quote:
Right now the democratic party is far more progressive than the Republican party

I would definitely question this claim. I see nothing progressive about the current democratic party other than that they use the word a lot.

The current GOP has its head up its ass, no argument there. But I don't see a lot of evidence that the current democratic party does not. I'm not sure the democrats have ever done anything for the poor.

I don't see this historic switch of the roles of the parties, I think it's a myth. I just see a GOP which eventually decayed into mediocrity, and a DNC which attempted to pick up the ball in 1968 and then dropped it in 1992 after getting sick of losing elections. Even the Carter admin, the sole accomplishment of so called progressive dems, was seriously flawed and riddled with neocon influence. Still, Carter i will grant is the best democrat.

I'm not sure civil rights are an issue, but then i'm not black. economically and socially, I don't see blacks as being disadvantaged, certainly around where i live. You go into the really poor places and you can be sure people will be 100% white, the richer you go, the more blacks you see. I realize it's not like that everywhere, but still, nationally I'd be very surprised if when you remove those top few %there is any remaining difference between blacks and whites. I think that like the feminists, at some point the civil rights crowd has to accept that they've won.

Johnson lost support over Vietnam not because it was a war, but because he had run on the platform of not going to war. "I'm no going to send american boys ..." sound familiar? Well., he lied. Continuously. It's hard to get support from that. Unless your constituency thinks your the son of god apparently.

Quote:
You can only stray so far from your platform.

Maybe at some point, but the new technique is to run on nothing but air. Obama's interviews on oprah and all seemt o be about cookies and argyle socks. If Obama ends up running on a ticket of cookies and argyle socks, how can his constiuency complain if he bombs Iran or Venezuela? He just has to say, "yeah, but I had my cookies in the war room and was wearing my argyle socks."

The Bush admin's platform seems to be "I'm the son of God"

What was he going to run on? "I attacked y'all on nine-eleven!" ? Not a winning platform.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Interesting. I feel like I've gotten a good bit out of it. I noted coming in that I had plenty of questions and not many answers. Now I still have questions but also have more perspectives to consider.-Geezer

So, you used the word "evil" a couple of dozen times

Quote:
The reason you and I argue is that I don't see Bush as the source of all woe and an evil mastermind with an evil plot for world domination. I just see a President who won't go down as great, but won't be the worst either. This disrespects your Bush-is-evil belief system, so like a good jihadist you spread your hatred of Bush to include me. I'm usually responding to a "Bush is Total Evil bent on World Domination!" Just because someone disagrees with you over policy does not make them evil. Misguided maybe, wrong, foolish, supporting different values. But "evil" implies.. Hitler evil?

throwing it in the direction of anti-Bush posters, and you have no idea what it means?

Wow.

Interesting.

---------------------------------
You're a lying sack of crap.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:07 AM

Quote:
Geezer: The reason you and I argue is that I don't see Bush as the source of all woe and an evil mastermind with an evil plot for world domination.

Geezer,

I think a confusion has happened here. Both of you are actually right.

The evil plot of world domination is that the neocons are part of a globalist circle. They are not "all" of the globalist circle.

The globalist agenda is pretty simple:

1. Establish unaccountable multinational unions
2. Dissolve the nation states within those unions
3. Merge those unions into a global alliance

This is *not* a conspiracy, everyone knows they are doing this, and they say they are doing this.

This is *why* the Iraq war. It was necessary to get the missing pieces of the middle east to agree to the MEFTA concept, hence, Iraq, Afgh, Iran, Syria and Lebanon were "needed"

Meanwhile, some oil companies sought to profit, some anti-socialist sought reform, and some religious nuts on all sides sought to go ape on their ape on their enemies. All are basically opportunists of the plan, but not the raison d'etre to the plan. Sure, they contribute to campaigns, because they wanted to see it happen. But they didn't write the agenda.

So, in one respect Bush *is* part of an evil plot to rule the world, but not as such. He's not necessarily a witting part, or even more of a part than anyone else. He's just maybe not a genius, and he's getting played more than other people. I think he's a bad person, on a personal level, a flawed individual, morally bankrupt even. But that's just my personal opinion. But he's not alone in that either.

But this isn't a "Bush Plan". It was a Clinton plan before it was a Bush plan, and it will be an Obama plan afterwords.

To see what's going on, its really informative to look at the whole history. In the Bush Sr. Admin there was a total struggle for influence, as the globalists tried to use the Bush Sr. presidency to forward the globalist agenda. There were intense struggles between Bush and the globalists, leading to a huge fight between Cheney, a member of the globalist camp, and Bush Sr.

The globalists, whether they "created" candidates, or simply helped the along or just joined their campaigns, or even just rode on their coat-tails - they went candidate hopping. They've been candidate hopping for a while, and you can tell because they show up, and their agenda shows up.

My analysis of the situation is that after Bush Sr. they decided "We need corrupt" and so they went with Clinton. Next they decided that Clinton was too crafty and decided "We need stupid" and went with Bush Jr. Now I think they're thinking "Stupid was a mistake, we need charismatic but politically naive" which is what I think they think they've found in Obama.

Globalists support Obama, make no mistake of it. This doesn't mean "Obama is evil" or even "Obama will be a bad president" it doesn't even mean "Obama will forward the globalist agenda." It means "Globalists think that Obama will forward the globalist agenda."

Now, the final piece of the puzzle is "Why is the globalist agenda evil?"

The globalists deeply believe that they are doing the right thing, and that it is for the greater good. The line between that and "evil plot for global domination" is very thin. I don't think that they are sitting their going "Muahahaha! We will rule the world!" At least, not in their inner circle. I think sometimes they get allies who think that way. I think they think that this will put an end to war, injustice etc. I also think they happen to be wrong. I think internal struggles in large empires such as the USSR show that. But that's not why its evil.

It's evil because it cannot accept compromise. The world govt model *forces* everyone to fall in line, and doesn't allow them wriggle room to be independent. There will be no independence when the agenda is complete, and I assure you, there will be no personal freedom on the level we have now, because this level of freedom is considered dangerous, and a threat. ID cards and person tracking will be needed. Any organization which opposes or threatens to de-rail or overthrow the global entity will need to be dismantled and destroyed. Free speech which threatens support for the union will need to be silenced. Remember, globalism has its roots in Trotsky, and though I like to use that to call it communism, even if it's not communism, it has those elements of soviet thought.

But the greater evil, and the evil that makes into my definition of "evil" is that the uncompromising agenda must be fulfilled at all costs. The globalists believe that their cause is not only just and good, but that it is absolutely essential, and that with out their global revolution, the world will destroy itself in war. While it is a persuasive argument, it has several problems:

1. It does not guarantee this. Civil wars happen all the time, and they will happen in the global entity. They may happen between people who want back the freedoms we have now, and those who seek to maintain the globalist union.

2. It is not the only way. Some sort of global disarmament is needed, sure, but not one which requires the removing the self determination, representation and freedom of the people and nations of the earth.

3. No argument of "the ends justify the means" is ever going anywhere good. At the end, it's probably more likely than not that the head of the one world govt. will fall into the hands of one of the "muahahahahaha!" crowd, even if not because of a flaw in the design, but possibly by coup, and this could lead to a position of unchecked power as the ruler of the Earth, controlling all the arsenals of the world. It would make Nazi Germany look like a spring picnic.

But the main reason the agenda is evil is that it does believe in itself to the extent that, as the agenda is 100% necessary for any survival of the Earth, any means are justified without question. You can slaughter civilians, torture people, drop nukes, destroy the environment, level forests, extinct 90% of all species, use up all of the world's natural resources, destroy all the freedoms of the world, because, in the end, you have basic survival, which is better than certain death.

But death is not certain. There are other solutions, which we should be working on, and, imho, get their first.

Our globalists of today are much more like Robespierre than like any of the historical figures I see them compared to. If it isn't already, the war on terror, if allowed to go unchecked, will become the reign of terror.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:07 AM

double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:28 AM

I'll go all simple here.

If it's done out of love, with the intent to make better and do no harm, it's good.

If it's done out of hate or neglect, it's evil.

As bottom line as I can get Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, you used the word "evil" a couple of dozen times... and you have no idea what it means?

Wow.

Interesting.

I have an idea of what it means to me. What I have a hard time with is describing my definition of "Evil" in objective and unambiguous terms - so that anyone with that description could always apply it to a certain person or situation and say (edit to add)correctly, "Geezer would consider that evil". And, once again, I think that the problem isn't at the Ghandi---Hitler ends of the scale of good and evil, but in the cloudy middle.

I think this is because deciding what's evil to an individual is in some part an emotional decision, like deciding what is beautiful. I think John Singer Sargent's painting Repose is beautiful, but Jackson Pollock leaves me cold. Another person might believe the opposite, but we both might think a sunset is beautiful. Can either choice of beauty be objectively considered the proper one?

One thing I've figured out from this discussion, (or at least brought to the surface to the point of being able to articulate it), Is that one's decision about what to consider evil depends a great deal on what one decides to consider the "Truth" of an event. Each person will have a differing perception of the truth, based on their own particular circumstances which have shaped their decision-making process. And again, there will be instances where almost everyone agrees on the truth, and instances where they don't. There will be cases where there isn't enough clear evidence about an event and the motivations behind it to allow a hypothetical impartial judge to determine the truth.

Oh, I've also decided that motives and motivations do matter, at least in my determination of evil. A person who wants to blow up a kindergarten just to collect insurance on his kid is still evil, in my book, even though the police stop him prior to the event.

So, yeah, this whole excercise has allowed me to clarify my thoughts about how I (and, I suspect, most other people) decide what is evil to me, about whether evil is relative(Y) or absolute, about whether the identification of evil by each different person is objective or subjective(Y).

Interesting, indeed.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:27 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

If it's done out of love, with the intent to make better and do no harm, it's good.

If it's done out of hate or neglect, it's evil.

Okay, wild hypothetical:

Let's say a US soldier from NY, who lost a family member on 9/11, happens upon Bin Laden somewhere in Afghanistan.

He hates Bin Laden and kills him.

Does his hate and harm done (to Bin Laden and those that love him) make this act evil or do the resulting lives saved make his act good?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:

Let's say a US soldier from NY, who lost a family member on 9/11, happens upon Bin Laden somewhere in Afghanistan.

He hates Bin Laden and kills him.

Does his hate and harm done (to Bin Laden and those that love him) make this act evil or do the resulting lives saved make his act good?

The act may be 'justifiable', but I'd still call it evil.
Bombing civilians in Nagasaki was evil, even though it ended a war, saving other lives.

Good people can sometimes do evil things.

The sometimes evil Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:52 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

Dreamtrove,

As to what democrats have done, or tried to do for the poor -

for starters, most democrats tried to kill the absolutely horrible bankruptcy bill that screws the middle class and the poor.

they've also been tryig to raise the minimum wage.

they were also succesful in preventing the Bush administartion from privatizing social security

as to what they've done for civil rights by comparisson -

they mostly stood against the new torture legislation Bush wanted passed, though they did not filibuster.-

They have not been running on the platform that gays should not be allowed to marry, and when pressed, yes sometimes weasel on that issue as much as possible, to their own detriment.

they did not disenfranchise poor voters on a massive scale.

....................

I'm fine with you saying they are all bad. The floor votes by the democrats could very well be posturing for all I know.

but at least make a distinction between the degrees of evil. As I saide, they still have to appeal to a more progressive base.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

And so, when YOU used the word "evil" so many times, what did YOU mean at the time? You don't have to be predictive or unabiguous, just tell us what you meant in context. After all, you used the word a couple dozen times literally. (Rue, by comparison, used the word only eight) You flogged the topic incessantly. What did you mean when you posted The reason you and I argue is that I don't see Bush as the source of all woe and an evil mastermind with an evil plot for world domination? Okay, Bush isn't an evil mastermind. What is he NOT?

What about when you said But what's really the best is that you both can't even envision anyone disagreeing with you who's not part of some vast hidden conspiracy with unstated but obviously evil goals. Paranoia strikes deep, indeed. You must have had SOMETHING in your head at that moment. Would you cahnge or modify your previous posts at this point, based on this discussion?

You throw the word at people as an epithet, then you weasel out of it. C'mon Geezer, where is the courage of your convictions?

---------------------------------
I must have left that in my other pants pocket.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Sometimes I wonder if you post just to argue :)

Quote:
Sure, there is a competition, a race to provide even better services to help more people.

Careful DT, you are replying to me, not vice versa, so it is you replying to Argue

.

And no, I still don't think the idea that corporations are leaping up and down like Donkey in Shrek saying "Pick me pick me, I want to help you, oh won't you let me help you, I really want to help you" is correct.

They're leaping up and down saying “Give me your money” and “No me, I want your money more! Give it to me Give it too meeee!”

Quote:
Then why does money exist? Money is a representation of payment for services rendered. If no services are rendered, then why does money exist?

Because several thousand years before the first corporation was founded people found that it was easier to trade using little tokens with an agreed universal value instead of haggling with real merchandise that was worth different things to different people.

Now you're getting it all arse about face, you say corporations just want to help us, I say they just want money and you seem to think that means I'm saying they don't render a service in order to get it. Of course they do, but take a look around, the most successful corporations aren't the one's that give the best service, they're the ones that make the most money. In fact the most successful corporations are the ones that make money without have to do anything or next to nothing to get it. Corporations want to make money, they don't want to provide a service, they want money, it just so happens providing a service or product or whatever is away of making money, if it wasn't corporations would do something else.

Quote:
It's not altruism, it's a functioning society, designed to reward people who help people by providing goods and services. This is what economics is. That's not an opinion, but an understanding, money was created for this purpose. If it were not so, nothing in economics would make sense.

Trade existed before capitalism, trade is not a capitalist invention. And frankly you show me an economist that says they truly understand economics and I'll show you a liar.

Quote:
I wouldn't accept a generalization this size, but sure, in general, most of the large corporations we have do not belong in a healthy capitalistic society.

No seriously, large corporations with the rights but none of the responsibilities of individuals have no place in Capitalism because they offer an unequal trading partner. In Capitalism you are supposed to be able to trade on an even footing, you can't do that with multi-nationals because of their monolithic size. They make the rules, and you either choose to follow their rules or the rules of some other monolithic corporate entity.

Quote:
Cisco's competitors basically work by copying cisco products and reproducing them.

Not exactly, there are standards in place to ensure that all network equipment is interoperable no matter what company it comes from. Belkin, 3Com, Linksys etc aren't copying Cisco, they're making equipment that does the same job for the same standards so that if the customer buys a Cisco Router they don't need to buy a Cisco network card as well, they can buy any network card they want.

To put it simply Cat5 cable is Cat5 cable no matter who produces it, it's the standard they're working from.

Quote:
For a long time it was like this with intel also, but lateyl intel competitors are coming up with unique ideas, and intel is losing field dominance, the market is moving to a healthier place.

Oh don't believe it. Really the core of the Intel business is PC CPUs, and that business hasn't changed one bit since the first Intel x86 chip save to give Intel even larger market share. There is currently four companies (AMD, IBM, Intel and NatSemi) that have rights to produce x86 based chips. And really that's all there is now in computer land, used to be Macs ran on IBM PowerPC chips, but now Apple has migrated to Intel Xeon and CoreDuo Pentium chips, both IBM x86 based. So for anyone to produce chips for PC's that have a chance of being actually bought they have to obtain rights to the x86 architecture, which since the twisted inter-licensing of AMD, IBM, Intel and NatSemi, and the fact that I'm sure these companies don't want any new competitors means getting in on the PC CPU market is, really, almost impossible.

NVidia has recently snapped up some ex Intel engineers and the talk is that NVidia wants to produce CPUs, but no one knows how, because they can't realistically market a non x86 chip, and the chances of getting a licence to fabricate x86 based chips seems slim at best. A market is not healthy if it denies new competitors, and this denial of new competition is repeated over and over where multi-nationals have control.

It's nature of course, who wants to let someone else in on their racket?

Quote:
I suspect this someone is a Fascist Corporatist Shachtmanite cabal, which believe in a form of trotsky socialism which they want to morph capitalism into. I'm damn near sure of it.

Really this sounds to me like the Socialist that say "Socialism only fails because the Capitalists don't like it" or "The ruling classes crush any Socialist nation because they're afraid of losing power!". Capitalism, like Socialism, 'fails' on it's own merits.

Quote:
Al Qaeda is a charity. read up on it. It's also a terrorist organization, it's all in the way in which it is used. But as a charity, it is a real charity. it's not a cover or a money laundering organization, it's actually a charity. Al Qaeda is a communication network, as such, it is neither good nor evil, it is only a tool. It can, and is, used for both good and evil, hence charity and terrorism.

Al Qaeda give money to buy weapons or friends, soldiers, allies etc. That's not charity, even by your own definition of charity. The US giving, what 3 Billion dollars a year to the Israeli military isn't charity, it's arming an ally so conceivably someone other than you does the fighting so you don't have to. The Roman Empire did that sort of stuff all the time, as did the British Empire, which is why they were both successful, they won without having to do their own fighting half the time. It's not Charity, its strategy.

Quote:
I think I backed the dole. But we don't have it. The dole is my favorite social program I said., logical simple. No problems, unless it funds illicit drug trade. But the dole is hardly a social program at all. When I think social programs I think about govt.

When I think about social programs I think about the NHS, that despite it's problems is still the envy of the world and still outperforms private only healthcare nations hands down. I think about people being able to get a pension in their old age even if they couldn't afford to save while they were working. I think about the fact that if the worse was too happen and I couldn't work any longer for what ever reason my country wouldn't say "Ta for the Taxes and all, but we really don't need you any more, there's a gutter, please do try to starve quietly".

Quote:
LOL. couldn't stop laughing. with you, not at you. but still, you're a trip. The corporation, sure, is a flawed economic institution, and the human being is a flawed animal. Things evolve.

It's just that whenever I talk to you on this subject I get this image in my head like you see this rich green and verdant land and there's these cute little bunny rabbits hopping around with big eyes and they smile like anime characters and giggle and each one's got a corporate logo and they're handing out can's of Coke or Pepsi and everyone's laughing and happy. Then a child falls over and skins their knee but the Bupa Bunny is nowhere to be found, so someone suggests if they all had socialised healthcare there'd be plasters for all and then there's a flash of lightning and a grey hand bursts from the grass, clawing at the blackening sky, and the Zombies rip fourth from the ground moaning their terrible moan "We are the Socialists, you will be Socialised, resistance is futile" as they proceed to bite the heads off all the bunnies.

Quote:
Socialism still looks like intelligent design to me, and I don't see a reason to compromise with it. Yet.

Well, yeah when your talking extremes of socialism or more often communism where your trying to break society down and start a fresh that's exactly what it is. But then Society itself is 'intelligent design'. In no way is modern society natural or even 'evolved'. We built it.

But Social programs like the Dole are Socialist, I thought you were in favour of the dole?

Quote:
I'm not ruling it out, but at the moment I see a long history of liberal academics seeking control over society to mold it into their world view.

The difference between the Liberal Academics and the Conservative Business men is that the Business men want to mould the world for their own personal gain and they actually get to do it. The Multi-nationals hold enormous sway with your government, the Academics, well, don't.

Quote:
So clearly, something isn't going write if socialism is a fluffy bunny rabbit helping people philosophy.

Bingo, and it won't either, because people aren't always looking out for what's good for the community, they're not always looking out for number one either, which is why we need both Individualism AND Collectivism, because we, as people and society are both, not one or the other.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
When I think about social programs I think about the NHS, that despite it's problems is still the envy of the world...

It's a small point but whenever I see this claim I always think: If this is true, why has the world not copied the NHS? And if they have, why do they still envy it?

It always struck me as a self-disproving claim.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Cavalier - is that you HK? I didn't want to assume.

Having quickly searched the archieves: Apparently not.

I'd have picked a different name, if I had realised it was so similar to an existing one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:45 AM

The Evil doers made me double post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And so, when YOU used the word "evil" so many times, what did YOU mean at the time? You don't have to be predictive or unabiguous, just tell us what you meant in context. After all, you used the word a couple dozen times literally. (Rue, by comparison, used the word only eight) You flogged the topic incessantly. What did you mean when you posted The reason you and I argue is that I don't see Bush as the source of all woe and an evil mastermind with an evil plot for world domination? Okay, Bush isn't an evil mastermind. What is he NOT?

What about when you said But what's really the best is that you both can't even envision anyone disagreeing with you who's not part of some vast hidden conspiracy with unstated but obviously evil goals. Paranoia strikes deep, indeed. You must have had SOMETHING in your head at that moment. Would you cahnge or modify your previous posts at this point, based on this discussion?

You throw the word at people as an epithet, then you weasel out of it. C'mon Geezer, where is the courage of your convictions?

Well, I tried to leave the political discussion in the other thread, but you just can't let it go. Why is that?

I have used the word "evil" in many discussions with you and Rue, to refer to the pretty obvious fact that "evil" is what you both consider Bush and the Bush Administration to be, based on your comments. Rue's thread "Stupid, Evil, and Corrupt" concerning what Rue considers the Administration's failures, comes to mind. http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=23730

You apparently come to this conclusion based on some of the points discussed above; the information you have, the beliefs you bring from childhood or have developed since then, your pre-conceptions and biases. This is not meant as criticism, since most everyone reaches their conclusion about what is evil in the same way.

You reach your conclusions, and I reach mine. Sometimes they differ. You apparently cannot accept that anyone can differ from your opinion (this is a criticism, BTW), especially relating to things about which you feel strongly (Bush's "Evil" for example. Or else why the persistent need to have everyone bow to your belief?). I don't particularly care if you think Bush is "evil". I just get tired of you trying to ram it down my throat.

So no more politics in this thread for me. If you want to discuss evil in general, fine. If you want do discuss "Bush is evil", start your own thread.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:49 AM

The NHS is ranked as about fourth best in the world, behind Germany and a few other European Nations I believe that have partial or fully socialised healthcare. If anyone from position five down isn't looking up to the NHS and aspiring to provide cheap health care to at least their standard then they're stupid.

Also everyone, EVERYONE, even those higher than the NHS on the league tables want NHS nurses and Doctors because they are amongst the best in the world. That includes the US health business.

It's not a self-disproving claim because you've applied false logic, by your logic there is no such thing as envy, because if we ever envied someone or something we'd copy it and then not envy it any more. But brother there's still envy in the world

.

Oh and I am planning to get back to you on the ST:Fascism thread eventually

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:29 AM

ELOISA

"Evil" double-post!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:30 AM

ELOISA

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I'll go all simple here.

If it's done out of love, with the intent to make better and do no harm, it's good.

If it's done out of hate or neglect, it's evil.

As bottom line as I can get Chrisisall

"What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil." (F. Nietzsche)

"Evil" is a word I try to steer way clear from, mainly in fact due to the Nietzschean reason - calling something "evil" is a stronger way of saying that "by my moral ethos this thing is wrong" and is therefore, in and of itself, a highly relativistic and therefore objectively meaningless word. Evil, good, etc. are emotive concepts, hence their frequent recourse in debates, but due to shifting meanings can't be relied upon out of context.

For the same reason I prefer not to use the word "terrorist". It's like calling someone a Nazi; by that, unless the person has self-referenced as a Nazi (or is a genuine German WW2 vet who was a prominent member of the party), you tend to mean they're a right-winger whose views you dislike. Most terrorists don't self-reference as terrorists, and terrorism comes in many shapes and sizes anyway, therefore "bomb-maker" or "mass murderer" are a little more specific. (Anyone notice how "Islamic terrorism" became "Islamic fascism" when the word "terrorist" had just become so over-used that its impact was being lessened?) Similarly, most "evil" people - and I agree that only people can be "evil" - don't describe themselves that way, and most people who would call other people "evil" would have their label challenged by those same people.

This is not meant as an argument for moral relativism, more like an observation that people argue about what's moral and what isn't and, therefore, using a categorisation word like "evil" is often ineffective.

(Apologies if that was a little abstruse. Philosophy grad.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eloisa:
most "evil" people - and I agree that only people can be "evil" - don't describe themselves that way, and most people who would call other people "evil" would have their label challenged by those same people.

Cases can be made for the evils I have personally done in this world, and to some I would plead guilty.
True, enduring evil cannot make this claim.
To claim complete purity of vision and spirit is a sign that you're on the Dark Side.

Excellent post, BTW Eloisa.

Yours in the Force, Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Well, I tried to leave the political discussion in the other thread, but you just can't let it go.

So in "political" threads you accuse people with words that you don't understand, and in "discussion" threads you don't discuss them? HAHAHAHA! Cool!

Quote:
I have used the word "evil" in many discussions with you and Rue, to refer to the pretty obvious fact that "evil" is what you both consider Bush

Except for "the pretty obvious fact" that I didn't use the word at all except to wonder out loud what YOU meant. I didn't say that Bush was evil or not evil, I didn't call Hitler and Stalin evil, and I didn't say that anyone else was sayin' it. But you did.

Quote:
You reach your conclusions, and I reach mine. Sometimes they differ. You apparently cannot accept that anyone can differ from your opinion (this is a criticism, BTW), especially relating to things about which you feel strongly (Bush's "Evil" for example. Or else why the persistent need to have everyone bow to your belief?). I don't particularly care if you think Bush is "evil". I just get tired of you trying to ram it down my throat.

I'm not trying to ram ANYTHING down your throat! If you look back at my posts you'll see that I just want you to explain what you mean. What's the problem with defining your words? Isn't that how people discuss things?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

To get back to my concept of evil -

I'd like to take 'good' and 'evil' out of the philospophical realm and into the biological.

Organisms have signals that induce them to behaviors that lead to species survival. Those signals are what put the value on anything. Pain, hunger, thirst, isolation, threat - without internal input they are just some events. It's the internal response that puts value on them in that they feel 'bad'. Oppositely, there are internal rewards for positive species survival behaviors. (I presume I don't need to list them out.)

As primates, people have evolved internal senses that make fairness, trust, and cooperation 'feel good'. Oxytocin is the hormone that creates those rewarding feelings.

There are some people born without much of that reward. Strife, stress, tension, fear can destroy it. So if you mess with people enough, over time you can destroy that sensation of reward.

So, in general, I'd say that actions that create an oxytocin boost in 80% of people are 'good'. People who prefer engender oxytocin-inducing interactions are 'good'. And, the opposite as well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

So, in general, I'd say that actions that create an oxytocin boost in 80% of people are 'good'. People who prefer engender oxytocin-inducing interactions are 'good'. And, the opposite as well.

So, are there 20% roughly that produce oxytocin when they torture other peeps, or when they shoot old friends in the heart and neck while hunting danquayles?

Most evil Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey there ChrisIsAll,

They don't get oxytocin out of it.

It may be that since that reward system is blocked they look for other rewards - sado-maso sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling (or other addictive behavior that goes through the dopamine system of physical rather than social reward) for example.

Just my speculation, but it's how I am putting the current information together.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, I'll bite. I said earlier that the concept of "good" and "evil" is a SOCIAL tool for behavior control. But it would be impossible to get anyone to buy into the system w/o offering them some sort of reward- I'll sacrifice my kid if the rains come. I'll give up being rich today because I might be rich tomorrow. I'll put up with crap because I'll get a place in heaven. IMHO, MOST of the time the specifics of "good" and "evil" are manipulated to benefit the powerful. But the BASIS is that in order to get people to give something up, you have to offer them something in return. But when you said

Quote:
that make fairness, trust, and cooperation 'feel good'. Oxytocin is the hormone that creates those rewarding feelings

I think there are other mechanisms at work. You can get species "cooperation" by simply having one individual dominate the entire nest/ colony/ tribe, appropriating all the resources first and putting all others to work benefitting one individual, but there is nothing in there of "fairness" or "trust".

It's possible that the release of oxytocin IN HUMANS needs ALL of those things together... elements of cooperation (w/o complete domination), fairness and trust... in order to occur, but "cooperation" alone doesn't explain the basis of "good" and "evil". Actually, now that I think about it... oxytocin release has to do with individual skin to skin contact and interaction. "Good" and "evil" seem to be much more generic concepts. Can you get an oxytocin release from being "good"?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:49 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Skipping all the political stuff...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you look back at my posts you'll see that I just want you to explain what you mean. What's the problem with defining your words? Isn't that how people discuss things?

And if you'll read may posts again you'll note that I have been saying that I don't believe that evil, even what one person considers evil, is objectively and unambiguiously definable. It's like defining "Beauty". I know what I consider beautiful, but I can't fully describe the process or internal emotional dialogue by which I determine "This is beautiful to me, and this isn't."

I cannot write a definition of what I consider evil which will allow someone else to always be able to tell, without further input from me, if I will consider a certain action or person evil. I doubt you can either. I can say I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I can say I try to look at both sides of the evidence, not just choose what fits my biases. I can say that a person's motivations for an action, or level of concern for those affected by that action, play a part in my decision. And sometimes my decision will be "I don't know. I don't have enough information."

So sorry, I can't define how I determine what I consider evil. I mentioned above (see the "I can say..." sentences) some of the criteria I apply, but I can't say how the final decision rises, except to say it is in part an emotional decision, based on my unique makeup as an individual.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:05 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

For example, fMRI imaging during cooperative games shows activity in areas where oxytocin is released. There do seem to be indications that primates (not just humans) have an internal scale by which they judge the fairness (cooperativeness, trust-worthiness) of others of their species.
This reward for social bonding seems to be separate from other rewards and seems to involve oxytocin.

I'm not saying that all species have this internal reward for cooperation. But that as cooperative primates, humans do and therefore have an evolutionary in-built scale for it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And if you'll read may posts again you'll note that I have been saying that I don't believe that evil, even what one person considers evil, is objectively and unambiguiously definable. It's like defining "Beauty". I know what I consider beautiful, but I can't fully describe the process or internal emotional dialogue by which I determine "This is beautiful to me, and this isn't." I cannot write a definition of what I consider evil which will allow someone else to always be able to tell, without further input from me, if I will consider a certain action or person evil. .

But Geezer, you have not even fractionally described your use of the word even in a specific sentence. "Evil is what I think it is." Well... DUH! That goes for all of us. So let's stipulate that evil is individually perceived and likely to change from context to context. Take a stab at it, and let's remove Bush form the discussion. When you said that you thought Hitler was "evil", what did you mean?

Quote:
I doubt you can either

But that doesn't keep us from exploring the idea, does it?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:20 AM