odds and ends by 1kiki

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Magon,

Don't have no media here, and I still have family in Australia. Besides, aren't you really a brit?

You really are digging for dischord within agreement here. Ah well, this thread is too long, let's put it to bed.

Ah I see you have no longer anything to say regarding your ideas and have moved to your usual passive aggressive insults. Nice work.

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

Saturday, January 7, 2012 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Particularly CTS - well possibly just because I actually get what she is proposing,
I really, really, really don't think you do. Please don't make this claim. It sounds like nails on a blackboard.

okay

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

Saturday, January 7, 2012 8:54 PM

Well there's many approaches, and then there's rules, and rules, like the difference in how/why such are or would be enforced, but I got rounds and imma have to mentally chew on this to formulate a cogent response that'll maybe get across what imma try to say here, so it'll take a bit - there's a facet to this I wanna go into, but I gotta do the job right now so gimme a bit, k?

-F

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012 11:11 AM

Okay, on the notion of "rules"...

Thing is folk seem to have a problem differentiating between rules of one kind or another, for example the difference between rules enforced by violence, and rules enforced by social pressure, as well as those of conscience.

Of them all, the latter are far, far more "real" than the others you see.

There's also as I like to mention, dissolution of LEGAL bonds will have less effect on SOCIAL bonds than people think, and generally save in extreme circumstances, a positive one.

Ponder for a moment some of the things considered universally repulsive by prettymuch everyone - infanticide, cannibalism, slavery (I don't mean the indentured servitude of debt-trap wage-slaving either, I mean the real deal) - and then think about WHY they are considered universally repulsive ?
It isn't cause some law, some government, made a rule, it is because people decided that it was.
I see racism eventually going the same way, it just ain't there yet.

Also, the perception of women as subhuman - there's still bias and prejudice, don't I know it, and too much of it tracks back to religious dickheads of many varied stripes, but it was the social/personal acceptance of women as human beings which forced the laws acknowledging this, which I hope to some day do in a graduated sense for children as well, as you are no doubt well aware.

Conversely, no rule, no law, of man will stand if sufficient of people as a whole find it offensive, prohibition was destroyed because no one would comply.
http://carrollstandard.com/oped/commentary/14218-dont-change-the-law-i
gnore-it.html

Now, that this comes with problems I'll not deny, for example the racism or religious biases within small communities can be notoriously problematic, especially when so many of those so biased wind up in rule-making or enforcing positions like CPS, local law enforcement or the homeowners organisation...
I could tell ya stories about Wakarusa, Indiana, that fer damn sure.

Anyhows, most people are actually MORE likely to obey social conventions than written laws, this comes in part due to the dilution of law from the critically necessary to the arbitrary and exploitive, and yet the actual consequences of breaking social conventions is so much lesser, is it not ?

I dunno if I can really get across what I am trying to say, but instead of one or the other, a black and white split, there's shades of grey here I think far more applicable, and that a third option is quite possible by simply changing the way people think and feel, or rather ALLOWING them to think and feel, instead of having those virtues beaten out of them by a society that offers us naught but servitude to sociopaths.

Ergo, what we *NEED* to do, is put the idea of harming others for gain or amusement into the same psychic category as infanticide or cannibalism, make it so repulsive that the mere thought of it is awful and doing so unthinkable.

Of course, you've got the other 'side' too, those grinning sociopaths and their deliberate, malicious enablers who knowingly propagate that system for their own causes or gain, and you want the stone cold hard truth - yeah, they gotta die.
We can prevent that sickness, or even redirect it, caught early enough, but sooner or later them in power will feel threatened when that power starts to wane, when the unthinking obediance is no longer assured as a given, and they WILL act in their own preservation, althought likely too late - I'd hope to wait them out, but they'll not meekly fade away or remain passive in the face of their own destruction, never for a moment think it - and never EVER forgive, because forgiving them IS WHAT ENABLES THEM.

But that part, for people like me, who are willing to live with the psychic cost of such a thing, those who can see both ends from the middle.

Anyhows, that's as much as I can say to it at the moment, cause it's been a busy week, argh.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012 11:24 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Ah I see you have no longer anything to say regarding your ideas and have moved to your usual passive aggressive insults. Nice work.

Magon

Give it a rest.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012 12:55 PM

Quote:
Ergo, what we *NEED* to do, is put the idea of harming others for gain or amusement into the same psychic category as infanticide or cannibalism, make it so repulsive that the mere thought of it is awful and doing so unthinkable.

How? Don't get me wrong, I am all for this, not matter what societal structure you support. Just wondering how you propose do do that.

Quote:
Of course, you've got the other 'side' too, those grinning sociopaths and their deliberate, malicious enablers who knowingly propagate that system for their own causes or gain, and you want the stone cold hard truth - yeah, they gotta die.

who gets to decide and implement that act?

Quote:
We can prevent that sickness, or even redirect it, caught early enough, but sooner or later them in power will feel threatened when that power starts to wane, when the unthinking obediance is no longer assured as a given, and they WILL act in their own preservation, althought likely too late - I'd hope to wait them out, but they'll not meekly fade away or remain passive in the face of their own destruction, never for a moment think it - and never EVER forgive, because forgiving them IS WHAT ENABLES THEM.

Sorry, you might have to clarify this. Are you saying sooner or later people in power will feel threatened because they are sociopaths or because power corrupts? What do you propose to have happen when that happens?

Sounds to me like thos who advocate for no formal laws are suggesting a kind of vigilante justice system. I could be wrong, so correct me if I am.

If you are, and are advocating that people take the social laws into their own hands and administer justice, I see this as a kind of mob violence scenario. The Terrors in France certainly come to mind when you start speaking of no forgiveness for those in power. I can say I wouldn't want to live somewhere where vengence was enacted my angry mobs in situations where there was a crime. Plenty of innocent people have ahd their heads lopped off or been strung up in such scenarios.

I'd also like to offer to you that even though you think the idea of formal laws are bad, formal laws have also been created to limit power. Back as far as the Magna Carta back in the 13thC, people have been trying to limit the powers of rulers. The legal and political processes that everyone in the West has have resulted from people who have risked life and limb to challenge the powers that be, and create FORMAL systems that ensure that the natural process of concentration of power does not happen. You guys appear to want to pull all that down, thousands of years worth of struggle because of a mistaken (in my view) belief that NATURAL processes would mean that we could all live harmoniously without some FORMAL laws in place to prevent abuse of power. And of course, as far as I can follow your arguments, which would appear to be flawed, so forgive me, I fundamentally disagree.

I'd like there to be formal limits/laws on businesses to prevent them from becoming either too large or too powerful. I'd like to see the same kind of arguments that apply to government around accountability also apply to privately owned entities. I'd agree with Sig that too large tends to mean too powerful regarding governments, so given the enormous scale of the US, I do agree with limited federal power (have come around to that one).

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012 3:37 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... I think you probably wouldn't put yourself in that category, but you've been sliding off the deep end ..."

Oh, so in addition to not having an opinion or stating it I'm supposed to NEVER get irritated or angry. Those are your rules? Whatever.

BTW - I'm just giving CTS >>> EXACTLY <<< what she - and you, and Frem - want, a society without rules.

How does it feel?

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012 3:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"people still must be free to make their own mistakes with their own bodies"

You are free and will remain free.

No doctor can FORCE a person to accept treatment. Not even under socialized medicine. And no one can prevent you from seeing the quack down the road, unless he/she is doing something illegal like selling you drugs they aren't licensed to sell. It's not about *FREEDOM* or even freedom. No one is taking your freedom away.

So, care to discuss the topic, which is the ability of a person to accurately assess the effectiveness of treatment in the absence of anything other than ads?

Or is that too tough for you?

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012 3:58 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte

Peace.

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012 4:09 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"So per the article, people are just too stupid to be allowed to make choices about their healthcare?"

You know, you're right. We're all supposed to line up and be processed exactly like cattle at the slaughterhouse. That's EXACTLY what the guy was saying!

Now - do you REALLY want to discuss ideas, or just lob your usual disinformation?

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012 8:59 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Magon's I totally agree with you that we need some laws or else its chaos and we all end up living in Sudan or the Balkans.

DT, I want television _and the Internet.

Kiki, I doubt that this thread will be redirected to its original topic, but I have been fooled before.

Frem, I believe that a decent chunk of people, not all certainly but some, go into power with good intentions of making things better and then the power corrupts them.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Sunday, January 8, 2012 10:57 PM

Quote:
How? Don't get me wrong, I am all for this, not matter what societal structure you support. Just wondering how you propose do do that.

By standing against it, stepping up, speaking out, calling them on it, the same way other social changes are made.

See, our system holds up exploitation and malice as laudable, often as not any mild punishment isn't for acting in such a fashion, but rather for not being slick/discreet enough and getting caught.
Our media, much of it, really, REALLY holds up the 'virtue' of sociopathy as some kind of triumph while dismissing altruism as weakness, naive foolish stupidity, etc etc - that being the main reason my complete disgust with american storytelling has driven me to foreign media for the most part.

Who are our 'heros' ?
What 'values' are held up as noble ?
Shit, just look as far as the fucking Randroids to see that aspect, right ?

And yet so few are willing to stand to, and say 'That is not right, that is not acceptable, I do not condone this!' - we could use a couple more, that for sure.

Where it STARTS, is with not teaching children those 'values' in the first goddamn place, cause the innate hard-wired drives come in primary and secondary forms, and by suppressing the primary drives of communication, empathy, cooperation - those secondary caveman level drives rear their ugly heads, I find this as a deliberate stunting of human potential, muchlike clipping the wings from a bird before it learns to fly - is it still a bird, then ?
Are we, if so terribly mangled, really still 'human' ?
Me, I think we are, because for all the effort invested in doing so, it never quite works completely, the spark is still there in most, waiting only to be fanned into life.

Quote:
who gets to decide and implement that act?

I don't think anyone should, hell I wish for, and still look for, a way for that to not need to happen.
But nor am I one to ignore ugly realities of a situation.
Take as example Musollini - I don't think anyone DECIDED on what happened to him, but rather the natural consequences of his actions caught up with him via the rage of them his actions affected.
I'd really, really rather it not come to that - which is why I seek other options.

Quote:
Sorry, you might have to clarify this. Are you saying sooner or later people in power will feel threatened because they are sociopaths or because power corrupts? What do you propose to have happen when that happens?

When things start falling apart for the current set of powers that be, do you really think they'll not try to destroy all they can, a spiteful scorched earth policy as revenge for things not going their way ?
I mean, we ARE talking about folk who's essential attitude towards that is muchlike a toddler throwing a tantrum and breaking toys rather than share - and mind you these folk have nuclear weapons within their authority.
Do you think even for a moment they'd NOT go so far as to order a launch, to start WWIII, as an act of petulant vengance ?
That's the moment I worry about, and it's not them so much as those who would carry out those orders that concern me, whether they would find the courage to refuse, or 'just follow orders' regardless of the cost.

Quote:
Sounds to me like thos who advocate for no formal laws are suggesting a kind of vigilante justice system. I could be wrong, so correct me if I am.

Not quite, I think that a serious adjustment is needed between formal laws, social mores, and demands of conscience, a re-balancing of priorities - I mean do you really think it needs to be illegal to jaywalk, or plant a vegetable garden in your front yard, or any number of petty nitpicks ?
Bear in mind that all formal laws have violence and potential death behind them.
What 'rules' then, are potentially 'worth' killing someone over ?
Not very damn many, although there might be a few, yeah.

Mind you, the american so-called 'justice' system is anything but, I've noticed that the scandanavian legal systems seem far superior in rights protection and restorative (as opposed to retributive) justice than ours, and have been investigating that, but I have been sore pressed for time lately.

Mostly though, we need to decide what are friggin priorities are - what the law would need to enforce, what society should enforce, and what folk should be left to decide for themselves, even if those decisions do not necessarily agree with the notions of others, if no harm to them comes of it.
And all else aside, the very PURPOSE of law in the first place was mostly to protect that latter concept, only laws have a way of becoming twisted, warped into a position where they somehow become more important than the very things they were intended to protect, people, their rights and property - and then even when that occurs, when they become a threat and an offense AGAINST the very things they were meant to protect, still held up and enforced by those 'just following orders' ?
No, I think not - and as such I think any law should come with a non-extendable sunset provision, period.

Quote:
If you are, and are advocating that people take the social laws into their own hands and administer justice, I see this as a kind of mob violence scenario. The Terrors in France certainly come to mind when you start speaking of no forgiveness for those in power. I can say I wouldn't want to live somewhere where vengence was enacted my angry mobs in situations where there was a crime. Plenty of innocent people have ahd their heads lopped off or been strung up in such scenarios.

Indeed, which is why, again, I would rather it not come to that - but that this particular freight train approaches I will not deny, and if the choice is between a Terror/Purge, and letting those in power destroy us all, ugly as it is, well...
Which is why we NEED a 'third option' and as quickly as possible, so it can be refined, then applied, but when folks stand there and shout down even the concept of anything else as that train lumbers closer because the solution isn't drop-in perfect, which NO solution is ever gonna be, my hope for anything other than a repeat of history's notorious cycle tends to fade, yes ?

Quote:
I'd also like to offer to you that even though you think the idea of formal laws are bad, formal laws have also been created to limit power. Back as far as the Magna Carta back in the 13thC, people have been trying to limit the powers of rulers. The legal and political processes that everyone in the West has have resulted from people who have risked life and limb to challenge the powers that be, and create FORMAL systems that ensure that the natural process of concentration of power does not happen. You guys appear to want to pull all that down, thousands of years worth of struggle because of a mistaken (in my view) belief that NATURAL processes would mean that we could all live harmoniously without some FORMAL laws in place to prevent abuse of power. And of course, as far as I can follow your arguments, which would appear to be flawed, so forgive me, I fundamentally disagree.

Apparently, you really really don't understand my arguments, which is odd given how often I say the same things, over and over, and you hear something else, over and over.
Lemme try a new tack, I would no more yank the laws a society depends on for those things out from under them unwanted than I would kick the crutches of a cripple out from under them...
But I would like to encourage and aid social, psychological and mental development to where those laws, those crutches, are NO LONGER NECESSARY and can be discarded.

As for the limits of power, the simplest way to do that is to reserve the decision making process ONLY to those who would be affected by a rule, and NEVER put it in the hands of those who will not be, especially if they might profit from it - this right there is a biiiig stumbling block within our system.

Quote:
I'd like there to be formal limits/laws on businesses to prevent them from becoming either too large or too powerful. I'd like to see the same kind of arguments that apply to government around accountability also apply to privately owned entities. I'd agree with Sig that too large tends to mean too powerful regarding governments, so given the enormous scale of the US, I do agree with limited federal power (have come around to that one).

Funny thing about that, there are - they're just ignored.
See, when the rules don't apply to everybody you wind up with a caste system, a class-based society, which is one of the things the Constitution was intended to prevent, although it was loopholed and sabotaged from the get-go by a combination of naivety (ex: Madison) and malice (ex: Hamilton, Jay) and it was through those loopholes that the current powers that be managed to fuck us with that.

Now, nuts and bolts, just thoughts which have come to mind - I would EXPAND the Bill of Rights, and throw a few provisions in elsewhere, just stuff to think about, for example...

Inheritence limits - one home, one vehicle, one years wages (this excludes general heirlooms, mind).

Add to basic rights: food, shelter and medical care at a basic level.
We have the CAPABILITY to make those human rights, and as such we damn well ought to.
(elimination of the concept and extortion/exploitation of 'insurance' would naturally be part of this, as such would fall under a social responsibility shared by the populace as a whole rather than legally by individuals, and before some Randroid psychopath comes whining about fair-share, considering what it costs to fucking bomb people who've done us no harm, this is cheap at the price, and WHAT you buy with it, is an enlightened, empathic society! - as opposed to what you "buy" with bombs.)

Also education as a human right/social investment.
Primary education would benefit from widening the curriculum and student engagement instead of top-down-tyranny, like sudbury or other models, adjusted to the needs of the student instead of square peg into round hole with a hammer of force and threat.

Now higher education would be best served by a form of open-source education, instead of this for-profit class-system shit we have now, anyone who can demonstrate basic competence within the subject manner can teach, and be compensated for it by the society/state/community - anyone who wishes to attend can do so at their whim - that whole piece of paper garbage can primarily go out the window, in the general sense, being relegated to a certificate of competence within a certain field rather than "I bought this piece of paper with daddys money and obedience", which it is now.

Vocational education as well would get a bump, since professionals could supplement their income in the same fashion by taking on apprentices, and not this bullshit super-extended unpaid ass-kissing session which is apprenticeships or them unpaid corporate whatevertheycallems...
No, the apprentices get paid at a rate appropriate to their skill at the time, and the professional gets paid a subsidy by the society/state/community to cover and encourage the extra time and effort.
As for skill certification, best done by a board drawn from those professionals.

Also, I would add a provision to the Fourth Amendment, the right to be left alone, ennumerated as The Right of Autocracy - if you are on your own property, doing something that harms no one, or only yourself, whether it violates some ridiculous mala prohibita "rule" or not, this right could be invoked.
For example if I wanna rip the DVD I paid for to my computer, and delete your user-prohibit-flagged bullshit adverts, I can invoke Right of Autocracy against your claim to dictate what I do with my property - or if I wanna smoke a phattie on my back porch, what's it to ya ?

Speakin of DVDs, intellectual "property": 20yrs or life of owner, whichever is less, PERIOD.
If you ain't make your bank in that time, you were never gonna.

That's all I got time for, alas...
But at least it's something to chew on.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Monday, January 9, 2012 7:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, you seem to be contradicting yourself here, and also contradicting CTS and DT and BTW all the other pro-market libertarians here.

On the one hand, you seem to be saying that the rules of conscience ultimately reign supreme. That once everybody believes the same rule (exploitation is as bad as incest) we will find a way to live in equality. On the other hand you seem to be saying that violence (police, soldiers and corporate goons) rule the day. That only getting rid of the overlords will allow the best of human nature to flourish. Which do you think is the predominant mechanism?

In any case, quite honestly, I believe else. I think that practicality will rule the day, in time. That when the superstructure which creates the coordination which creates prosperity becomes cancerous, people will look at the superstructure as an impediment to their well-being and revolt.

Anyway, if I have missed the mark, sorry for misinterpretation. I will get back to reading your posts more thoroughly later.

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

Monday, January 9, 2012 7:24 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Whew. Glad I missed this one. Clicked on it because I caught the 165 posts(!), but went right to the last page and ended up grinning. Everyone's so pissed off at each other...can't help it. Just glad I didn't get involved, and hope something else comes along soon for you that is less divisive.

Speaking of which...how do you pronounce "divisive"? I hear it on the news and from politicians as "di VISS ive", but I always thought it was "di VICE ive"...the other one sounds so, I dunno, uppity...? My pet bugaboo has always been "clique", which Yanks pronounce "click" without fail. It's "cleek", it's French, and it always makes my hackles rise. Tho' come to think of it, maybe THAT's uppity too...

Sorry for the threadjack...tho' maybe it's not a bad thing, given the way this thread has gone and that it's still at top of the stack. ;o)

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

Monday, January 9, 2012 8:04 AM

BYTEMITE

*Shrug* I know people who pronounce "creek" as "crick" and add syllables where there are none, such as pa-yants for pants. And IRL I regularly mangle words because I only see them written and don't talk enough to people to hear them pronounced.

I pronounce "clique" as "click." Dictionary dot com indicates "klik" has become an acceptable pronunciation (anglicized/Americanism) as much as "kleek," and words RARELY sound the same when they are filtered down into a non-originating language. After all, you and I don't speak German, do we? Should we get annoyed that the Japanese don't pronounce their borrowed word for calendar right?

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

Monday, January 9, 2012 8:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nikki- not sure that people are mad at each other as much as "storming and norming". Quite honestly, I feel that I have reached a better understanding of everyone involved and would certainly like to follow Magons' and Frem's ideas further. They have "been there and done that" and have much to offer. Unfortunately, my time is not my own, and I'm a slow student. I may have to leave this for this upcoming workweek ... as Frem has had to leave his replies for when he is NOT doing rounds... but I truly, truly appreciate the input of EVERYONE involved, and that includes CTS and DT and Byte and Kiki and.... well, everyone. I just wish had more time to grok it all.
Honestly.

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

Monday, January 9, 2012 8:46 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Byte, it's no biggie, just as I said a personal bugaboo. Like "nucular"--only that one actually pisses me off! I try, whenever possible, to figure out how to pronounce things that come from other languages, like Dulce de leche is "dulchay de lech uh"...for me it's just respectful of the language, and as I've said before, I'm a language nut. Always makes me cringe when people call Coeur D'Alene it "Cordelain", when it's actually "Coor de lehn" and means "Heart of Alene". I guess mispronounciation of French bothers me most because mom was French and it comes natural to me. Like I said, it's just a personal quirk.

But nobody answered "divisive"...anyone? I'd really like to know...maybe I'll look up that Dictionary.com...

Sig, I know all that. Just funny to come in on page four and see all the petty squabbling, that's all...

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

Monday, January 9, 2012 9:35 AM

BYTEMITE

"Nukular" gets to me too, I admit. And I've always said Di-vice-ive. Long 'i' sound. As in "divide."

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

Monday, January 9, 2012 1:57 PM

Quote:

Sig, I know all that. Just funny to come in on page four and see all the petty squabbling, that's all...

I take exception to that comment. I felt I was being insulted by DT and called it. CTS grumped at me because I had not understood her views and I said 'okay' and then it was back to the discussion.

Most people don't like to be disagreed with and their world view invalidated. They certainly don't like being misrepresented or misunderstood. It usually results in a degree of cranky and or frustration. I both understand others frustration and certainly feel it from time to time, but I see it as a normal part of discourse when ideas differ greatly. It's no biggie, and in fact it is more offensive for you to come in here this late in the discussion and name those sentiments as petty squabbling.

BTW I pronounce it 'deVICEive' and have never heard the other kind of way of saying it. I also say 'cleek' for clique.
I don't understand why americans dont pronounce the 'h' in herb.

Speaking of 'erbs'

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

Monday, January 9, 2012 2:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
How? Don't get me wrong, I am all for this, not matter what societal structure you support. Just wondering how you propose do do that.

By standing against it, stepping up, speaking out, calling them on it, the same way other social changes are made.

See, our system holds up exploitation and malice as laudable, often as not any mild punishment isn't for acting in such a fashion, but rather for not being slick/discreet enough and getting caught.
Our media, much of it, really, REALLY holds up the 'virtue' of sociopathy as some kind of triumph while dismissing altruism as weakness, naive foolish stupidity, etc etc - that being the main reason my complete disgust with american storytelling has driven me to foreign media for the most part.

Damn, lost my post. I was agreeing with you here, Frem. It just feels like howling down the mouth of a tornado when everything is stacked against change in this area. You try to educate the young, knowing full well that everywhere all over the media what they see is stupidity, vacuousness and bad behaviour being rewarded by both media attention, financial gain and power. I find it distressing but i have taken heart by the disgrace and closure of News of the World, which was basically a sociopaths handbook.

Quote:

I don't think anyone should, hell I wish for, and still look for, a way for that to not need to happen.
But nor am I one to ignore ugly realities of a situation.
Take as example Musollini - I don't think anyone DECIDED on what happened to him, but rather the natural consequences of his actions caught up with him via the rage of them his actions affected.
I'd really, really rather it not come to that - which is why I seek other options.

I'd rather it never came to that. I find the photo of Mussolini and his mistress, dead and hanging upside down one of the most disturbing pieces of imagery from ww2, well perhaps not the most, but very. It reminds me of how base war makes us, how much it creates the antithesis of your ideals; no empathy, brutality, revenge. All qualities we don't need more of.

Perhaps you need to expand you ideas of 'other options'.

Quote:

When things start falling apart for the current set of powers that be, do you really think they'll not try to destroy all they can, a spiteful scorched earth policy as revenge for things not going their way ?
I mean, we ARE talking about folk who's essential attitude towards that is muchlike a toddler throwing a tantrum and breaking toys rather than share - and mind you these folk have nuclear weapons within their authority.
Do you think even for a moment they'd NOT go so far as to order a launch, to start WWIII, as an act of petulant vengance ?

Okay, I get it. You are talking about the current set of powerful people, who you see as sociopathic. I think there are people out there who carry these traits. I don't necessarily think they are the elected leaders, but the next strata down. The advisers and aides, the business men and women who seek to fund their own agendas. I saw that with the Bush administration, just how far some of those extremists were willing to go and how they influenced Bush, who was really quite a simple, foolish man.

I agree that the system needs fixing, just not sure that we are suggesting the same way of doing it. Hell, I'll admit I'm not SURE how to do it.

Quote:

Not quite, I think that a serious adjustment is needed between formal laws, social mores, and demands of conscience, a re-balancing of priorities - I mean do you really think it needs to be illegal to jaywalk, or plant a vegetable garden in your front yard, or any number of petty nitpicks ?
Bear in mind that all formal laws have violence and potential death behind them.
What 'rules' then, are potentially 'worth' killing someone over ?
Not very damn many, although there might be a few, yeah.

OKay thanks. I think we probably are in some kind of agreement here.

Quote:

Mind you, the american so-called 'justice' system is anything but, I've noticed that the scandanavian legal systems seem far superior in rights protection and restorative (as opposed to retributive) justice than ours, and have been investigating that, but I have been sore pressed for time lately.

Yes, I'm a huge advocate of restorative justice and I work on the fringes of that system. I'd like to be more involved. It swings in roundabouts here. Sometimes it comes into favour when an Attorney General is pro RJ, but then the right winged elements of the media will start braying about it being 'soft on criminals'. Unfortunately, revenge and retribution are just more satisfying to the general population.

Quote:
Mostly though, we need to decide what are friggin priorities are - what the law would need to enforce, what society should enforce, and what folk should be left to decide for themselves, even if those decisions do not necessarily agree with the notions of others, if no harm to them comes of it.
And all else aside, the very PURPOSE of law in the first place was mostly to protect that latter concept, only laws have a way of becoming twisted, warped into a position where they somehow become more important than the very things they were intended to protect, people, their rights and property - and then even when that occurs, when they become a threat and an offense AGAINST the very things they were meant to protect, still held up and enforced by those 'just following orders' ?
No, I think not - and as such I think any law should come with a non-extendable sunset provision, period.

I often feel the issue is that those who implement justice, the decision makers, are from the top strata of society and those that break the law are often from the bottom. It becomes about class, wealth and privledge in the end, and that is not what is was meant to be, or what it shouldn't be.

But there are glimmers of hope. Restorative justice, collaborative law, community mediation models, neighbourhood justice centres, victim/offender programs all aim to do something different or at least do it in different ways. It's hard and an uphill battle because even those good ideas get pulled back into the circus and distorted, but the concepts are there, and the passion to do it.

Quote:

Indeed, which is why, again, I would rather it not come to that - but that this particular freight train approaches I will not deny, and if the choice is between a Terror/Purge, and letting those in power destroy us all, ugly as it is, well...
Which is why we NEED a 'third option' and as quickly as possible, so it can be refined, then applied, but when folks stand there and shout down even the concept of anything else as that train lumbers closer because the solution isn't drop-in perfect, which NO solution is ever gonna be, my hope for anything other than a repeat of history's notorious cycle tends to fade, yes ?

I have a strong desire to it never getting like that, and currently I'd rather be for the powers that be than have society go through something like that. I'd hope there was a third way.

Truth be told, none of us seem very clear on what that might look like.

Quote:

Apparently, you really really don't understand my arguments, which is odd given how often I say the same things, over and over, and you hear something else, over and over.
Lemme try a new tack, I would no more yank the laws a society depends on for those things out from under them unwanted than I would kick the crutches of a cripple out from under them...
But I would like to encourage and aid social, psychological and mental development to where those laws, those crutches, are NO LONGER NECESSARY and can be discarded.

As for the limits of power, the simplest way to do that is to reserve the decision making process ONLY to those who would be affected by a rule, and NEVER put it in the hands of those who will not be, especially if they might profit from it - this right there is a biiiig stumbling block within our system.

well in fairness, I'm not purely directing my comments at you and it's clear that all of us have different ideas, even if we fall within one camp or another. There have been comments made about 'no formal laws only voluntary ones' which I am responding to here. But thank you for taking the time to elaborate, especially if you have done so many times before.

I'd put it to you that even in your system, reserving decision making to those who would be affected by such a rule would require some sort of formalised structure to enable it to happen. Perhaps what we agree on is that holding power needs formal structures around it a la the constitution or the magna carta in order to create a set of limitations.

As for the rest of your post, I like the sound of most of your ideas. Not sure about vocational education, but the rest sounds pretty close to what I believe i think....

Cheers

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

Monday, January 9, 2012 8:52 PM

Siggy:
Human nature is contradictory, it's like a split level dichotomy with infinate branches, IF you look at it in black and white, on and off terms - a scientific mindset doesn't seem to really wrap well around human pysche interaction, cause that's shades of greys and fluffy-logic that often don't make no damn SENSE when looked at with a dispassionate viewpoint.

I'm not saying that conscience OR violence rules the day - but that they can and have, and somewhere in between is more average realistically, think of it like a slide-switch, and I'd like to push it further AWAY from "force and violence" and closer TO "cooperation and communication" - which for me is kind of a step by step process, which I'll explain further a little bit on here...
But I think some level of violence is gonna stick to us a while, and if so, better that it lands on the bastards that put us here than the innocent, yes ?
(Even better that it never lands at all, but I've not found a path to THAT yet, though I keep lookin)

Quote:
That only getting rid of the overlords will allow the best of human nature to flourish.

That was Robespierres mistake, a damn fool one too - scraping the scum off the top of the pot accomplishes nothing but clearing the deck for more scum, you have to stop PRODUCING those mentally warped tyrants and triggermen - again, like your excellent stream analogy, go pull the root instead of hacking the branches.
Which is why I focus on sabotaging the systems which cripple our children before they can grow - every year, every month, every DAY you can buy them against that programming, that shit MATTERS.

And as you say, enough of that and it's over for em, the hundred-monkey point, which I think we may well be a lot closer to than we realize, and when it tips over I think it will be less violent than expected, but I am not sure that's entirely a good thing, cause again, when you're dealing with sociopathy, forgiveness is enablement - many of the bastards who put us HERE only managed to do it cause we let them slide the first two, three, even four times, and forgive me this...
But I'd sleep a lot better knowing they were dead.

Magons:

Quote:
Damn, lost my post. I was agreeing with you here, Frem. It just feels like howling down the mouth of a tornado when everything is stacked against change in this area. You try to educate the young, knowing full well that everywhere all over the media what they see is stupidity, vacuousness and bad behaviour being rewarded by both media attention, financial gain and power. I find it distressing but i have taken heart by the disgrace and closure of News of the World, which was basically a sociopaths handbook.

Oh I feel ya - but it's worth remembering that when I started taking on the hellcamps they were considered no more than a myth, an urban legend, and to even bring up the topic would get one relegated to the same mental dump bin as PirateNews - not to mention I was a kid bereft of even the stability of family, with no resources or support up against something so massive and entrenched it was beneath social notice.
And they *still* got their asses kicked.

Every big thing in this world, it's made out of little things, and every social structure in this world, it's made out of people - ever seen a candle-lighting ceremony ?
It starts with ONE.

As I mentioned before, one reason our society here in america suffers so is that we murdered our visionaries, smothered our ghandis, strangled our mother theresas - psychologically and emotionally moreso than physically, but end result is the same - but at this time folks *are* fighting back, a damn lot of them, and in growing numbers, albeit opposed by jackass dumbfucks who wanna undo all of civilization and cloak their malice as often as not behind religion...
The jury is still out on that one, but if the religions of this world actually take the step towards enlightenment and pitch these fuckers out instead of embracing them, I may some day feel the blasted things have redeeming value.

Yeah, sure, the deck is stacked, the game is rigged and the odds against you if you play by their rules at their table - so you don't do that, you play YOUR game against THEM, and you cheat like hell!

Quote:
I'd rather it never came to that. I find the photo of Mussolini and his mistress, dead and hanging upside down one of the most disturbing pieces of imagery from ww2, well perhaps not the most, but very. It reminds me of how base war makes us, how much it creates the antithesis of your ideals; no empathy, brutality, revenge. All qualities we don't need more of.

Amen to that - although if the choice is such a horror as that...
OR the horrors of letting THEM do that to others, over and over and over and over again...
I wouldn't bat an eye at doing it - but I wouldn't even *pretend* it wasn't an evil act nonetheless.
I dunno quite how to explain it, but I don't do ends-justify-means, if one does evil in the pursuit of a noble goal, it's still evil and one should have the self-awareness to friggin admit it, to own your own conduct, it doesn't JUSTIFY a goddamn thing.
Wouldn't stop me neither though - which is why you'd really not never want me in charge.

Quote:
Okay, I get it. You are talking about the current set of powerful people, who you see as sociopathic. I think there are people out there who carry these traits. I don't necessarily think they are the elected leaders, but the next strata down. The advisers and aides, the business men and women who seek to fund their own agendas. I saw that with the Bush administration, just how far some of those extremists were willing to go and how they influenced Bush, who was really quite a simple, foolish man.

I agree that the system needs fixing, just not sure that we are suggesting the same way of doing it. Hell, I'll admit I'm not SURE how to do it.

Well that ties in with our previous discussions about RWA/Authoritarians - and my 'solution' is preventing folks from winding up that mangled between the ears to begin with, by sabotaging the structures and programming that do it, while offering the antidotes to that poison.
As I have said before, mercy, kindness, tolerance - these can be WEAPONS, if used well.

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of judgment. For even the wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours at least.”

Quote:
Yes, I'm a huge advocate of restorative justice and I work on the fringes of that system. I'd like to be more involved. It swings in roundabouts here. Sometimes it comes into favour when an Attorney General is pro RJ, but then the right winged elements of the media will start braying about it being 'soft on criminals'. Unfortunately, revenge and retribution are just more satisfying to the general population.

A perception we need to change - once again I point to the asininity and vacant stupidity of puritannical religion as a secondary cause here, cause while they TALK of forgiveness, they mean for THEM - for everyone else there's hellfire... fuckin hypocrites, but anyhow, the social perception of this needs to change - as does our habit of PERMANENTLY punishing folk for all eternity with the Felony-Forever mark of doom which ENSURES they turn back to criminal behavior cause it's the only path left to them.

Quote:
I have a strong desire to it never getting like that, and currently I'd rather be for the powers that be than have society go through something like that. I'd hope there was a third way.

Truth be told, none of us seem very clear on what that might look like.

I have some ideas, but am not sure exactly how to put them in words - all I can say is that we'll know it when we see it and should be aware and ready to take advantage of opportunities.
I know that's vague as hell, but without getting all into metaphysics I am not sure HOW to describe it to anyone else, being able to feel the shape but not see the color or the size...

Quote:
well in fairness, I'm not purely directing my comments at you and it's clear that all of us have different ideas, even if we fall within one camp or another. There have been comments made about 'no formal laws only voluntary ones' which I am responding to here. But thank you for taking the time to elaborate, especially if you have done so many times before.

I'd put it to you that even in your system, reserving decision making to those who would be affected by such a rule would require some sort of formalised structure to enable it to happen. Perhaps what we agree on is that holding power needs formal structures around it a la the constitution or the magna carta in order to create a set of limitations.

Depends on what ya mean by formal - paper makes lousy armor, and words on paper can be so easily ignored.
If you mean formal in the terms of mutally understood social contract with progressive consequences for stepping out of bounds, even what most folk call Anarchy DOES kinda have that, I kid not.

Mere words on paper mean nothing without the will of people to make it so, and if enough people will to make it so, than it *IS* so - which is how in essence the Constitution was intended to work, save for the initial sabotage of it which landed us here - predicted in excruciating detail by Patrick Henry before the damn thing was even ratified, who's ideas are as valuable now as they were then, if not more so since we have the benefit of having experienced, and recently, the exact problems and situations he raises.

All in all, I think we're goin in the same direction, just not necessarily on the same boat - which is fine, better than fine, cause there's a better chance of finding a solution that way, or even finding one BETWEEN our intended solutions and intent that works even better, so ya never know.

As I said, I can feel the shape of it, but not the size, color or depth, but that there *IS* a shape to feel, that is extremely gratifying.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 2:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, more odds and ends ...

You know, I think it would be really nice if people would occasionally read articles written by scientists for scientists and the interested laymen ... it would be so much better to learn things than debate in a vacuum ...

on to more odds and ends ...

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Acidity-in-Ocean-May-be-Danger
ous-than-Warming-022212.aspx?et_cid=2493552&et_rid=283499368&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fnews-Acidity-in-Ocean-May-be-Dangerous-than-Warming-022212.aspx

Acidity in Ocean More Dangerous than Warming

Among the repercussions of global climate change, the effect of ocean acidification on marine life is one of the least-understood variables. Increasing acidity in the world’s oceans could pose a greater threat to marine life than warming waters.

The oceans have already absorbed about one-third of the 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide that human activity has added to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Pollution-Exposure-While-Pregn
ant-Ups-Risk-of-Obesity-in-Daughters-022212.aspx?et_cid=2493552&et_rid=283499368&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fnews-Pollution-Exposure-While-Pregnant-Ups-Risk-of-Obesity-in-Daughters-022212.aspx

Pregnant Pollution Exposure Linked to Offspring Obesity

The levels of the environmental pollutant perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) that mothers had in their blood during pregnancy increased the risk of obesity in their daughters at 20 years of age. The findings come from a recent study of Danish women in which the Norwegian Institute of Public Health participated.

In recent decades, there has been a sharp increase in the number of overweight children and adults in both Norway and worldwide. It is suspected that diet and exercise alone cannot explain this large weight increase.

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news-Antibiotic-Resistant-Staph-Tra
ced-to-Livestock-022112.aspx?et_cid=2491265&et_rid=290390323&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.laboratoryequipment.com%2fnews-Antibiotic-Resistant-Staph-Traced-to-Livestock-022112.aspx

Antibiotic-Resistant Staph Traced to Livestock

The research focused on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC398, also known as pig MRSA or livestock-associated MRSA because it most often infects people with direct exposure to swine or other livestock. It is likely that MRSA CC398 started as an antibiotic-susceptible strain in humans before it jumped to livestock.

After transferring to livestock, MRSA CC398 became resistant to two important antibiotics, tetracycline and methicillin, which are used for treating staph infections. The resistance likely is a result of the routine antibiotic use that characterizes modern food-animal production. The animals commonly are given antibiotics to prevent infection and promote growth.

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-DS-Massive-Crack-Discovered-in
-Antarctic-Glacier-012112.aspx

Massive Crack Discovered in Antarctic Glacier

Extending for 19 miles (30 kilometers), the crack was 260 feet (80 meters) wide and 195 feet (60 meters) deep.

Eventually, the crack will extend all the way across the glacier, and will calve a giant iceberg that will cover about 350 square miles (900 square kilometers).

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

Monday, February 27, 2012 10:18 PM

OONJERAH

This may be "irrelevant," but it's artistic.

Excellet shades of green:
GREEN is beautiful font color="a0ffb4" ... GREEN is beautiful font color="adff96" ...
GREEN is beautiful font color="a0ffa0" ... GREEN is beautiful font color="caffca" ...

But we don't have to hack Hex to get the color we want.
Just go here: http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_colornames.asp

Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 12:43 AM

Just because its the odds and ends thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:32 AM

OONJERAH

"The size of the patch is unknown, as large items readily visible from a boat deck are uncommon. Most debris consists
of small plastic particles suspended at or just below the surface, making it impossible to detect by aircraft or satellite.
Instead, the size of the patch is determined by sampling. Estimates of size range from 700,000 square kilometres (270,000 sq mi)
to more than 15,000,000 square kilometres (5,800,000 sq mi) (0.41% to 8.1% of the size of the Pacific Ocean), or, in
some media reports, up to 'twice the size of the continental United States'. Such estimates, however, are conjectural
based on the complexities of sampling and the need to assess findings against other areas."

HEY! At least it's not man made. And if it were, I didn't do it!

Personal responsibility is the Truth.
Self determination triumphs over reaction.

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:30 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I wish we could just send our garbage up into space.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 7:40 PM