Post #189,731
1/11/05 8:43:35 AM
|
Now there's a wrong-headed philosophy
Here's my position in a nutshell. Anyone whose philosophical belief system leads them to conclude that the world must be destroyed to be saved is not suited for high public office. Now if you'd said, ..leads them to conclude that we must destroy the world to save it... then I'd be inclined to agree. And if they're inclined to act on that thought, then I'd prefer them to wind up in jail or an insane asylum. (Both have happened in the past.) But I'd also see the point as moot since there is no group out there who believes that who is likely to get democratically elected. And I'm not willing to throw away democracy worrying about it. Back to your position, there is a significant difference between what you said and what I said. The difference is who acts. Someone who believes that God will destroy the world but who has no inclination to do it themselves is fairly safe in my books. I don't believe that there is a God to do that destroying, and I'm willing to let them wait expectantly as long as they desire. As long as that person or persons are not inclined to act on God's behalf, I don't feel particularly threatened by that belief. Furthermore, your analysis of why this belief system should be banned applies to the version that I described, not the one that you did. Which means that, unless you have other reasons for your position, you should adopt my more nuanced version (that doesn't suggest that we immediately try to dismantle democracy). Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #189,767
1/11/05 12:51:49 PM
|
No it isn't.
Now if you'd said, ..leads them to conclude that we must destroy the world to save it... then I'd be inclined to agree. And if they're inclined to act on that thought, then I'd prefer them to wind up in jail or an insane asylum.
They (the fundies) are not in charge. Remember? This is God's plan. And if to a True Believer it is God's plan to destroy the world, what exactly do you suspect said True Believer to do to slow or stop the destruction?
Right. Nothing.
The real difference between us is that you only condemn active destruction, while I additionally condemn passively (and gleefully) allowing the destruction to occur.
And having my position is far from wrong-headed. By your reasoning a parent who withholds medical treatment for their child out of some idiotic religious conviction is guilty of nothing. The parent did not "actively" cause the disease/trauma/whatever. In this case, your position cries out to defend the parent even more - they didn't even want their child to be ill, while the aforementioned Christian is actually looking forward to the end of the world. Strikes me that our hypothetical parent is a more sympathetic character.
And you call my position "wrong-headed"? Feh.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #189,782
1/11/05 2:51:11 PM
|
And you remain wrong
My reasoning does not lead where you claim that it does. My reasoning leads to saying that people who believe that their kids should not get medical care should be allowed to participate in the political system. I disagree with them. If they violate the law, then I advocate charging them. But if I'm willing to accept that people whose opinions I don't like shouldn't be allowed to participate, then why should I expect that I should be allowed to participate? (More people are likely to abhor my beliefs than theirs...)
Again, be very careful before you advocate throwing out democracy. No matter how much you may dislike the current state, the odds are that whomever leads a change like that will be worse. A lot worse.
It would be cliche to point to past examples like Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin. Cliche but true. For a current example, well if there was support for discarding democracy in this country, guess who would be likely to wind up as dictator? You got it, the commander in chief of the military, who has substantial support both within our military and within the states from whose ranks the military is overwhelmingly drawn.
Think about that before suggesting anything idiotic. For the record, were I to be forced to choose at the moment between giving power to you or George Bush, I'd choose Bush. As much as I hate him and he scares me, he hasn't said or advocated anything (yet) that I see as causing irreparable harm to the principle of American democracy. You, on the other hand, have.
And, as tradition will have it, this is all that I have to say you on this topic. Unless you come up with something stunningly novel, I'm not going to bother responding to you any more on this topic because you and everyone present know what I would say well enough that I don't need to bother saying it.
Regards,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #189,785
1/11/05 2:54:30 PM
|
OT: Branch this, please.
The right-shift is killing me.
Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #189,805
1/11/05 4:10:52 PM
|
The arrogance of youth.
A question != advocacy.
Emphasis added to help the reader.
Democracy might be globally too dangerous.
... a strict dictatorship of the people might be a better option. Provided that dictatorship is not based upon some medieval superstitious religion of fear.
And now for something completely different, Ben's misrepresentation of what I said:
Again, be very careful before you advocate throwing out democracy.
For the record, were I to be forced to choose at the moment between giving power to you or George Bush, I'd choose Bush. As much as I hate him and he scares me, he hasn't said or advocated anything (yet) that I see as causing irreparable harm to the principle of American democracy. You, on the other hand, have.
Ah yes, I've irreparably harmed American democracy by ..... expressing an idea. An idea so heinous that I dare not repeat it more than once: "People who look forward to the destruction of life on the planet should not be in power."
Unadulterated blasphemy, that's what it is.
Now, I'm done.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #189,900
1/12/05 4:19:52 AM
|
Re: Now there's a wrong-headed ... lateral arabesque?
Maybe we need not decide what IS is.
Look, suppose you needed a Doctor to perform a bleeding edge new sort of operation, one so new that there are no nice survival stats on outcomes; there's dissension from the old guard, etc.
You find one who says he can help.
You investigate a little; find that he's a big fan of Mary Shelley, has collected very many body parts in his lab (well preserved by latest tricks). He really Wants the job.
Of course, if his heart isn't much in Your aims; if it doesn't work out too well for you -- there's this other project, the only one he's Really Interested in.
Would you want this Doctor in charge of your life (expectancy)?
Of course too, all realize that there is absolutely no way to expect some 'law' change to prevent a religio-loony and lots of other kinds - from say, achieving let's even say: control over the Bagman's codes. Such as we are, and just now, before any nukes actually fly. (Most weren't born when the last ones flew/dropped)
So this discussion was moot before phase II.
My 3 Kopeks
|
Post #189,929
1/12/05 12:29:42 PM
|
The point you may have missed
I wouldn't want that doctor, and I'm not voting for Bush either.
But look at your closing thought: Of course too, all realize that there is absolutely no way to expect some 'law' change to prevent a religio-loony and lots of other kinds - from say, achieving let's even say: control over the Bagman's codes.
I only wish that was true. This argument is over the fact that Mike apparently does seem to think that it is reasonable and desirable to make a law change to prevent religio-loonies from having access to political power. And doesn't understand why many of us (myself included) see this as advocating something that would cause irreparable harm to the principle of American democracy.
I'd also like to wave a magic wand and have the problem go away. But banning fundamentalist Christians from political office isn't the way to do it.
What would happen if there was such a ban? Well quite simply, the principle of having a democracy that everyone is free to participate in would be gone. The principle that the government will not discriminate on the basis of faith would be gone. And the banned religious people would just lie about their beliefs and continue to participate anyways unless we went to more draconian measures (which are an even more obvious violation of the ideals that we'd like to believe that we have).
I think you recognize this, after all you've said that there's absolutely no way to expect this. Mike obviously doesn't, and when he fails to understand something this basic, there are literally no grounds for communication.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #189,937
1/12/05 1:14:00 PM
|
I understand your point.
But it wasn't ever my point. I raised the question - is democracy a good idea when the majority of people who vote are bent on (or at least looking forward to) the destruction of life on the planet? Clearly, I think, from the viewpoint of everyone living outside said environment - and the minority of rational minds within that environment even, democracy is not a good idea, especially when said environment has the tools to actually end life on the planet.
The non-existent, idealized version of American Democracy you are so enamored of requires an educated, tolerant people in order to produce enlightened leadership. What passes for democracy in this country has clearly not yielded enlightened leadership. So where is the problem? I'd argue that the idealized version of American Democracy you speak of will never come to exist because the voting majority of the American People will never be educated or tolerant. Further, to my way of thinking, the rise of fundamentalist Christianity and its influence over our governance guarantees that the voting majority here will forever remain uneducated, egotistical, intolerant and yes, dangerous.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #189,959
1/12/05 4:59:44 PM
|
Mike, listen to yourself.
I once conceded an argument when I relized I was about to defend the internment of Japanese Americans during WW-2. I think you're way past the point where it's better to re-read your posts and re-consider your premises.
--
- I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
[link|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484|Richard Stallman]
|
Post #189,980
1/12/05 9:03:04 PM
|
Sorry.
I re-read everything I wrote and stand by it. I'm also not going to post here anymore in deference to right-shift issues, which I, myself, am beginning to have trouble with. Ashton's post in the other forum is a nice summary (and I think perhaps less inflamatory) of what I intended to posit. ;0)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #189,970
1/12/05 6:45:12 PM
|
Moving on ---> to metaphysics and The non-Spotless Mind (new thread)
Created as new thread #189969 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=189969|Moving on ---> to metaphysics and The non-Spotless Mind]
The common condition of things that did not happen is that you cannot disprove them.
Anon.
Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both.
- James Madison
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more
and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
H.L. Mencken
|
