Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 Jan 2002 00:48:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1873 times
|
| |
|
|
First, I don't intend to troll, but it has been a long time since I
participated here, and so I am finding it hard to recognize the limits of
acceptable behaviour here.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
>
> > > > The Villains are part of The People. How can you tell one from the other?
> > >
> > > Well, for a start, anyone who happens to be shooting at me. Even if they're
> > > doing it in support of a nation-idea against which I am fighting.
> >
> > OTOH, that person can think of you as a dangerous threat to his/her
> > lifestyle.
>
> And they'd be right.
>
> > PLUS there is the chance you or that person are the villain, but
> > cannot realize it due to strong conviction in your/his/her own ideals (i.e.,
> > "I'm right because I think I am, so you must be wrong").
It took me 27 years to realise that during the cold war the Russkies
didn't think of themselves as the villains, but us. They didn't sit over
there freezing their Red asses off guzzling vodka and hooting and howling
about ridding the world of those "good, wholesome Americans." They didn't
exclaim to one another, "Woot! We're the bad guys! Ain't it terrific?!"
That's not quite how they perceived things or how they acted, I must assume.
I don't think it should have taken me 27 years to make that discovery, but I
never really thought critically about it prior to that, and until that point
I was led to believe they were evil people and sometimes wondered how they
could rationalize being evil. And I think many people really never do make
such a discovery, and many don't even wonder how a person they consider to
be evil justifies being evil - and without at least wondering that, I don't
see how the discovery that those who are different do not consider
themselves evil could possibly be made. Additionally, I am mildly proud of
making that seemingly obvious discovery which others seem to overlook,
though it came to me none too soon.
The "I'm right because I think I am, so you must be wrong" is instilled
by the individual's society that teaches him that he is right - not that he
"believes" he is right, but that he "knows" he is right. Moreover, he is
right, because his society says he is. In effect he is conditioned (a
polite or subtle or less extreme way of saying brainwashed) to believe he is
"right" by the cult(ure) that he belongs to. Therefore, two people from two
different cultures can both "know" they are right even when their beliefs
are diametrically opposed; even when the beliefs of both can't possibly both
be true - either one or both has to be incorrect. Such that Christians know
their God is real and that Muslims are wrong and such that Muslims know
their God is genuine and Christians are wrong (and therefore infidels). The
dogma of any culture is taken as fact by its members, when it is not fact at
all. Objectivism is the antidote to this paradox.
Even the whole of mankind, as a single world culture has some mixed up
(erroneous) beliefs that the culture perpetuates. For instance, the
commonly held belief that females are the weaker sex or inferior to men and
therefore deserving of fewer privileges within any given society. For
millenia this erred belief was held as fact and still is in most respects.
Also most if not all cultures for millenia have held and instilled the
inaccaurate belief that outsiders (or those who are minorities within the
society) are inferior, and their proof has been that none of these inferior
people has ascended to the levels of success of the society's accepted
majority, while neglecting the fact that they weren't permitted to do so.
It is extremely difficult to objectively examine such strong belief
systems when the viewer is immersed in that system, especially beliefs that
are global in scope - maintained and adhered to by virtually all societies
and cultures - as Einstein expressed so exceptionally, "Few people are
capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the
prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of
forming such opinions."
Making a judgment that labels a person as a villain with the limited (and
frequently misinformed - just look at the examples in the preceding
paragraphs or look at history for how often this turns out to be the case -
or better, find an example when it wasn't the case) knowledge of the
culture(s) one belongs to is much like playing God, though lacking his
alleged omniscience.
> No. If we accept that the notion of a villain is self-defined, then we are
> both our nemises villains. It's not like in comic books where some people are
> bad and some are good. Most people think they are good (even if I disagree
> with them) and those who do not are crazy (one way or another).
Truth be told, we all are (right and good - according to what we believe,
and crazy - because of the fallacies of our beliefs).
> > Even someone who is committing a crime in front of me may not think of
> > himself as a villain;
>
> And he may not be one. Crimes have nothing to do with right and wrong or good
> and bad.
nothin?
> > Villainry (I dunno if the word exists, just pretend it does) is relative.
"Mos Eisley spaceport - you will never find a more wretched hive of scum
and villainy." The word is villainy. I am often reminded of that line from
Star Wars when I hear the name of Washigton, DC but I digress... I think in
a sense you are correct. It is relative to the working knowledge of the
perceiver. So within one cult(ure) an act will be viewed as evil by most
and in another cult(ure) will be seen as holy. So burning crosses and
lynching outsiders is acceptable, non-villainous behaviour to KKK members
whose working knowledge is limited (and obviously whacked to the vast
majority of people, though not all). To an omniscient being, however, there
would be no room for debate, it wouldn't be a relative matter. In all
things there must be a correct answer, whether an action is ultimately good
or bad (or neither or both). A (big) problem is that so many of us think we
are close enough to omniscient to be able to decide whether an act is
villainous or good, when in fact our collective (and most individual's)
knowledge of facts regarding any possible example are ordinarily quite
lacking. Sure we are capable of determining in most cases if an action is
harmful or beneficial to us personally as individuals, but that is far from
being able to determine if an action is good or evil in the grand scheme.
So, for most of us, our working knowledge is so likely to be full of flaws
or complete omissions that there is a high chance that our calculation is
incorrect. And quite unfortunately most do not even acknowledge the
possibility that they are lacking knowledge or judicious capability, much
less admit to themselves that their knowledge is in fact deficient - that
there is far more they do not know than they do know.
> > > So no nation would gain by taking the goods of another? I don't see that • WWII
> > > happened because Germany was trying to break into Polish, French, or
> > > Austrian market economies. They wanted to take their stuff (foremost of
> > > which (I guess) was productive capacity). It was simple thuggery. How has • the
> > > EC changed that?
> >
> > Different context: after the depression, Germany was faced with many trade
> > barriers lifted by other states, and was suffering with it. Since they had
> > no negotial power, the response was war.
OK, you are right, there probably won't be a big war anytime soon between
the EU nations, I will go along with that, although my knowledge on the
subject is minimal. It doesn't seem to be prudent for any parties involved.
I doubt there will be a war between Florida and Georgia either, or even the
US and Canada. Perhaps you bring up a point - that countries won't go to
war if they aren't forced to the point of outright desperation. Looks good
on paper, but I think there is plenty written on paper that defeats that
assumption.
> And that couldn't happen again? Obviously the EU won't permit those kinds of
> trade barriers, but what about those outside the EU? There are borders.
>
> > The EC (now EU) meant "no barriers". In fact, it means no tariffs when
> > passing borders (and no passports within Schengen Space), making the goods
> > produced in "A" more competitive with those produced in "B".
>
> I didn't follow the whole thread, but then why are LEGO sets different prices
> in different EC nations?
Different markets... will bear different prices... doesn't necessarily
mean the price difference is due to taxation.
> > One of the most important things about the EU is idealistic: the old
> > nationalisms were put to death for the sake of the "european conscience".
>
> So now you can be nationalistic about all of Europe. :-)
Yeehaw. There has to be a good nationalism quote to put here, but I'll
just say yeehaw again.
> > "My country is no longer better than yours, we are now stronger together" -
> > no competition, cooperation for the greater good.
>
> The greater good, as long as your economy is strong enough to join and you play
> by all the rules and so on and so forth.
Given the United States as example, that could be quite some time, even
when the economy halts and in spite of the fact that there is constant
rule-breaking.
> > I like that idea. Who
> > knows, if one day we can convince the Brits to feel "Europeans from
> > Britain"... ;-) If that is possible, we can then walk towards the Earth
> > becoming *one* country. That old dream of all emperors, maybe possible
> > without bloodshed after all - but then again, that is purely a dream for now.
>
> I'm hoping that the notion of countries will become outmoded long before that
> can happen. I guess we'll see.
>
> Chris
Once people scientifically (or mathematically) conclude that either
Christianity or Islam or neither is correct, that is once the real truth
becomes known fact to all instead of everyone making assumptions and
regarding them as truth - when truth is known and there is nothing to
separate one society from another, you may be able to achieve one global
society with one government or no government. Of course, that is not the
only hindrance or dispute between various societies, cultures and
sub-cultures, but a glaring example taken from the many.
And with regards to one united global society that requires no government
(or country as you put it), until all the country lovers (those who adhere
to the assumption that a state of some kind must exist even if their own is
not perfect or even useful) come to understand that their belief is unbased,
life without some form of government(s) will not happen. Moreover, anarchy
won't work until everyone knows (not believes) it will (and how it will)
work, and very few if any seem to know it (are able to prove it), and most
believe otherwise, myself included. Please explain to me how the world's
current state of affairs is not the result of anarchy - human life began, I
am supposing, without government of any kind, with true anarchy, and men
have been coerced, bullied and manipulated into the current world situation,
and would be all over again even if we somehow ridded the world of all the
governments that exist today. I understand that we have collectively gained
eons worth of knowledge since pre-historic anarchist man, but without
something in place (a state) to prevent men from bullying, coercing and
manipulating other men into statehood they surely will, no matter how much
knowledge we have. Ideally there will be government, but one that barely
does (or is required to do) anything and that will happen when men have made
enough advancements in knowledge and take their own precious mortal lives
that seriously.
Thoreau: "Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I
believe—“That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are
prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) This was fine. Don't profane and don't attack people and I think everything else just falls into place. (...) I hold various opinions that I "know" are right and they are in opposition to my society (or at least the vast majority of it). (...) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) And they'd be right. (...) No. If we accept that the notion of a villain is self-defined, then we are both our nemises villains. It's not like in comic books where some people are bad and some are good. Most people think they are good (even if (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
