gaia.plateau

Hey hey, just idle chit chat on a hookah smoking forum it's your thread, if you wanna talk about purple people eaters, I'm game. Did you read post #13?

QUOTE (BohoWildChild @ Sep 26 2009, 03:57 PM) in my response to Gaia I believe I address those same sanctions which he said didn't work and I have every reason to believe they were effective. For most of them you just argued that they failed because they were not undertaken by the entire world... but in the same post you argued that sanctions undertaken by the whole world cannot work because the UN doesn't have teeth. For the others, I responded to with comparable evidence. We seem to be in agreement on all the problems and challenges facing international sanctions today... I'm just not as idealistic and/or optimistic about them as you, despite those problems and challenges. QUOTE (BohoWildChild @ Sep 26 2009, 03:15 PM) Sanctions work Nyo Ohn Myint ... Okay, read the piece... tried to research the journalist, found nothing. Would you contend the assertion that the only claim Myint is making is that "the sanction has sent a message"? If not: Targeted sanctions restricted to the sale of arms have upsides, but corrupt regimes have never had problems getting weapons under the table. The bottom line, as it currently stands, is a virtually unopposed military dictatorship maintaining oppression and abuse over the Burmese population. I wouldn't call that conclusive of "sanctions working". If so: Please help me realize how I misinterpreted the article, and thank you in advance.

Okay... red bolded text is not the most conducive for reading, as helpful as it can be for conveying frustration. Strains the eyes. I'll do my best to respond. Sorry in advance if I lapse into formal or academic language, force of habits and all that. "It's not a matter of whether or not I think they should. It's a matter of the people themselves need to determine and carry this out on their own." But you're making it a matter of whether or not you think they should, when you construct this dichotomy for them of revolution vs being lazy. It's not a matter of choice, there are innumerable factors and complications involved. I'm not comfortable with condemning whole populations to death because they didn't have the tremendous fortune for the specific structural circumstances that allow for revolution to spring up around them. "Sanctions are not designed to hurt anyone." It doesn't matter what sanctions are designed to do, it matters what they do. Blockading food and fuel from a population and/or progressively raising tariffs against them has, historically, hurt people. I have a difficult time imagining evidence to the contrary. "And of course revolutions are hard. That's why they're called revolutions!" Referring to the above, just for cohesiveness- the point is not that they are hard, the point is that in many situations they are impossible (refer to my last post for details). Coming from a country which was lucky enough to have the right circumstances for revolution, and criticizing others who have not, is in my mind akin to a sighted person criticizing a blind person for running into doors. "I'm not against alturism. I'm highly alturistic and spend a lot of time doing charity work myself - but if you actually read what I said (now highlighted in red) you'd see what I said. Do you seriously think for example Mother Teresa would have been able to accomplish anything without the backing and support of the Church? She was personally assured by the church she was a part of that as one of their clergy person she would have food, and shelter and medical attention. Therefore she was free to devote her time to a "selfless" cause. Selflessness can only come into play once our own needs are taken care of." This is taking a very narrow view of altruism... it doesn't need to be restricted to devoting one's life to others without a single thought for oneself. Altruism is simply having equal or more concern for the needs of others, as for yourself. It's as simple as that. My mind baffles at large-scale examples from the past five or six decades; victims in concentration camps sacrificing themselves to save their friends, family and complete strangers... people caught in natural disasters doing the same thing... the evidence for the existence of "true altruism" is staggering. It's not easy, maybe it's not even for everyone, but it exists; the argument against its existence, as I said, has been a purely political and economic campaign of blind rhetoric. "Honestly you're reading too much media." I think it more likely that I'm reading too many history books. "Every law that has ever been passed has done so at the allowance of the people". Ours is a hundred-thousand years history of people oppressing one another, whether it be ethnic superiority, kings in castles or ideology-based dictatorships. Perhaps I misinterpreted you, and you meant "Every law that has ever been passed... recently". If this is the case, my rebuttal of 99.99999999% to the contrary would be made hyperbolic, and something like 75% would be more appropriate. "I've actually traveled to whose countries." You're making this claim as if I hadn't. What did you do there? In Guatemala I spoke with nearly one hundred genocide survivors about their experiences over the forty-years of US-mandated systematic extermination, living in shanty towns and remote villages which had seen death squad massacres as recently as a month before my arrival. In Cuba I interviewed over three dozen peasants, students, professionals, professors, soldiers and public officials, including former revolutionaries, and was arrested and interrogated not once but twice for asking some pretty tame questions. Haiti, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua: similar stories. "Yes. People without any choices whatsoever? Very, very rarely. There are alway choices. Even if those choices are only to see where things are going and pack up your family and quietly walk away...All because they would not sit by and accept the status quo while doing nothing more than complaining about it in their living rooms" How is packing up and quietly walking away not "allowing" corrupt people to remain in power? And how are people supposed to do that when they're in shackles? How many people in the countries we're discussing do you think actually have living rooms? "That's my point! The United Nations has no teeth! It has nev er effectively imposed a damn thing." Then who do you expect will impose sanctions? Superman? Unilateral sanctions have never had a single success story in history. "Even China who is one of the other permanent members of the Security Council has never agreed to or abided to any sanction against any nation except the now defunct USSR" Except for North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Myanmar, and a thousand others available through a short google search. "Uh, no.... I've actually been to Cuba. When you get off the plane at the Havana airport, there's a billboard sized sign that says "30 milliion children are sleeping on the streets tonight. Not one of them is Cuban." However, it was the sanctions that eventually led to a massive exodus on the part of Cubans who immigrated primarily into the United States. Many of them friends of mine." Yes, I actually have been too. And spoken with over a dozen families of expatriots to the US. When I have more time I would be happy to provide you with some of the overwhelming evidence of the counter-efficacy of the blockade against Cuba, for now I can share with you my personal experience. I spoke with ministers of agriculture, defense and foreign policy in La Habana, all of whom took not a little pride and arrogance in their ability to use the blockade to turn the people against the United States, distracting them from problems at home (I'm sure you're familiar with "la perioda especial"). Why do you think it's Barack Obama and not Raul Castro beginning dialogue on taking down the "sanctions"? If you have been there, apart from billboards about children on the street I'm sure you'll have see the uncountable signs, posters and government-mandated graffiti espousing how the American blockade is the sole cause of all Cuban problems. Further... and less to the point of sanctions but addressing something you've brought up... beginning with the "massive exodus". Are you referring to Castro emptying his jails and sending the prisoners to the US on a boat after you declared that you would accept all refugees? I'll have to check my numbers again for the exact statistic, but the number of actual Cuban illegal immigrants to the US is a minuscule fraction of what the Fox News condemners of socialism claim. I personally spoke to these people and their families, (I would be happy to send you my piece all about this stuff). Virtually no one has ever left Cuba for the US because of a lack of freedoms, or human rights abuses, or anything like that; Cubans risk their lives on rafts for Nikes. "Full sanctions have never once been applied to Iran. Partial through the United States and it's allies, but from the world at large? Never." "Same as above. Partial through the United States and it's allies, but from the world at large? Never." You were just complaining like two paragraphs ago at how useless the world at large is at applying sanctions. What would be your solution? "According to my Syrian friends they worked quite well. They left Syria not because of the government but becsause they sanctions resulted in their being unable to live at the standard they wanted for themselves and revolution was imminent in their opinion." So... the sanctions worked because they caused the people to suffer so much that some of them (presumably the few who were rich enough to manage it) were forced to leave the country. I don't know if I'm comfortable with this conclusion. "Been there. Haiti has always been the dumping ground of the world and ignored. This is one nation that either needs serious sustenance or to be absorbed into another " Haitians wish. In 1994 Jean Bertrand Aristide was their first democratically elected leader in time out of mind, who ran on a platform of building hospitals, schools, liberating the media and removing foreign interference and control. We applied sanctions, when that didn't work we overthrew and almost certainly assassinated him, and set up a brand new brutal dictatorship in his place. "Chile, Argentina, Philippines. Been there. Been to all of these and the sanctions actually put enormous pressure on the governments through the people who eventually overturned those governments. Without a whole lot of help from the rest of the world." Philippines was a violent revolution... Chile was a popular one... Argentina was an international intervention. I can post some literature on how futile and counterproductive these sanctions were, or relate some of the stories that my friends and teachers, Chilean and Argentinian revolutionary leaders, have told to me. Either way. "You're 24 years old. You have wonderful young ideals about the world being a better place and alturism, and people shouldn't suffer and all of that." I don't think that age is necessarily an indicator of experience, objectivity or knowledge. I am probably the most non-idealistic person I know, a near-complete cynic in fact, and have absolutely no problem with people suffering. What I care about is accuracy of understanding, sincerity of awareness and conviction of cause. "I based most of my opinion on what I read and watched on the news channels along with what I'd been taught in school and studied for myself. And then I got out into the world and actually spent time with those "oppressed people"... If you actually live with them for weeks or sometimes months at a time as I have, I think you'd see a different side of things. " I think I pretty much answered these suppositions earlier in this response... best not to judge a book by its wear and tear sometimes, I guess. "I could do the history tracing but frankly I don't have time and the thread has gotten off course through my own fault as much as Gaia's." I'm not sure how indicative this is of cognitive balance when your entire argument throughout this thread has been the importance of people taking personal responsibility. Replying to the Myanmar case in a subsequent post, this one seems to be running a bit long.

QUOTE (BohoWildChild @ Sep 25 2009, 11:40 PM) Chagrin the death and suffering of millions for the sake of geopolitical power plays? It's not a chess game in which the pawns have no say so. We keep the people in power. We do. It's a bit difficult for populations to stage revolutions (if that is what you're insinuating should happen) when the great powers of the world do everything in their power to keep corrupt governments in place. QUOTE (BohoWildChild @ Sep 25 2009, 11:40 PM) People always, always, look to their own personal benefit before consideration of others. I personally think it's part of our drive towards continued survival and understandable. If this were the case, and every person in the world completely selfish and driven by greed, we would have died out as a species before we thought of agriculture. Certainly there are examples of human selfishness in history, and vastly more if one has the very convenient perspective of an economist, but they are outweighed by altruism a million times. Certainly there are some nations which have cultures of selfishness, but they are not 1 in 200 and even in those cases it is not homogeneous. One has to ask, without altruism, how can we possibly combat ecological collapse and/or climate change? How can we possibly see nuclear disarmament, or reconciliation between the North and South, religious tolerance, or the innumerable remaining list of global threats before us? How can we possibly avoid annihilation in our lifetime? Arguments against altruism amount to one thing... obsolete, Cold War rhetoric cooked up in neoliberal think tanks, resurrected over the past decade to justify the new global push for reinforcing structures of vampiric international trade. I've read the books, journal articles and op ed pieces by economists and psychologists who put forth the arguments against altruism, and if I had more time and interest I would deconstruct all of the flimsy claims that have been made right here. But as both sides of the debate have yet to prove the other unequivocally wrong, I do think it's this simple. Without altruism, we are necessarily and unarguably doomed (the only possible arguments require the denial of climate change, ecological collapse, arms races, post-westphalianism, the world being round, etc.). Therefore, there must be altruism. QUOTE (BohoWildChild @ Sep 25 2009, 11:40 PM) Every law that has ever been passed has done so at the allowance of the people. Whether supported by a military in the case of a dictator or in the case of a democracy, it's still allowance of the people. In the case of the dictator, the military are part of the people and therefore equally responsible because when they take off that uniform at the end of the day, they're still fathers, sons, husbands, etc. Every injustice every performed has also been allowed by the people. All through history. Only if we're comfortable stretching the definition of "allow" severely. If a five year old child with one hundred kalashnakovs pointed at his head stands by as soldiers rape his sister, is he allowing that to happen? Would you propose that there is some action he could take to change it? Because these are effectively the circumstances through with 99.999999999999% of laws have been passed since recorded history. QUOTE (BohoWildChild @ Sep 25 2009, 11:40 PM) There are many examples of sanctions not working, true, but there are an equal number of when they have worked in history - but only when the sanction is complete and absolute. Dating all the way back to Lysistrata. And if there's an equal number... well this is just off the top of my head, sanctions this past century which have not only failed, but Could you give one example from the last 100 years? Because regardless of fictional accounts from millenniums ago... sanctions today means multilateral, which usually means United Nations. Here are some sanctions off the top of my head which actively helped the undesirable government in question. North Korea 1950 Cuba 1962 Iran 1979 Zimbabwe 2003 Syria 2004 Haiti 2004 Early 90s - Iraq, Myanmar, Angola Mid 80s - Chile, Argentina, Philippines. Okay, hopefully that will be enough to get started if there are an equal number which worked... remember that these are not examples wherein sanctions failed, but wherein sanctions actually helped the ruling government. You say that it's inconsequential that sanctions hurt the population, because it's up to the population to overthrow the government. Let's forget for a moment that countries like Russia, France, the US, Britain and China continue to exert influence and control in countries like Haiti, Argentina, Columbia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc. and in many cases actively prop up these corrupt regimes out of neoliberal interests. Throw that reality right out the window; it isn't needed. Revolutions aren't things which spring up out of nowhere and depose of a regime like a cool spring mist... they require a strong civil society, structural opportunity, resources, affinity, international support, political opportunity, and many other things. Sanctions obliterate civil society, erode resources, close off opportunities and discourage support. I've been in places under sanction, I've interviewed people there about politics, economics, and civil society. And invariably one answer always tends to keep coming up, no matter where you are (to paraphrase from many): when you're dying of starvation, political action is not in the forefront of your agenda.

QUOTE (BohoWildChild @ Sep 25 2009, 10:42 PM) QUOTE (gaia.plateau @ Sep 25 2009, 09:06 PM) Sanctions have never once in history worked... they only hurt the people. Targeted sanctions are inherently impotent by necessity. I don't disagree with you on any particular point apart from that... but I remain in the position that rumours and gut feelings are not good bases upon which to craft policy. Is this the article you were referring to? It's the only one I saw... but the only suppositions of weapons development that I found were in the comments at the bottom of the piece. That's not the only one, that's only one segment. I saw it in broadcast, so I don't know completely what they're doing with the website. I disagree with you about sanctions because the people are the answer. I'm pretty liberal but not remotely a bleeding heart liberal where I think you have to save "the people" at all costs. The people only allow their government to remain in power and do as they please even though they might disagree with policies through inaction. It is unfortunate but true that until you effect the people they will generally take no action until their own wants and desires are thwarted. I'm sorry if it seems hard hearted but nope, I'm not in favor of saving "the people" of anywhere including the US. Imagine an world wide oil sanction against the US because the world decided they would sell to to us because they didn't like our Republican party. How fast do you think the party would dissolve? Very, very fast. Based entirely on our own discomfort, because quite simply the human race as a whole is not all that generally alturistic. We didn't do much of anything as a colony until it began to affect our comfort and suddenly "Let's throw a Tea Party!" Such is humanity. 'Rani It isn't that sanctions are bad because they hurt the people, it's that sanctions are useless because they only hurt the people. But that said, even if they were useful despite the their impact upon the people, I wouldn't think one need be a bleeding heart liberal to chagrin the death and suffering of millions for the sake of geopolitical power plays. To the analogy of theoretical oil sanctions against the US... history very strongly suggests that it would only intensify support for the government in power by giving them an external "other" to rally support against, in distraction from other issues. I can list myriad of examples from any region on earth to support this.

Still using ones that I have washed 100+ times.

Sanctions have never once in history worked... they only hurt the people. Targeted sanctions are inherently impotent by necessity. I don't disagree with you on any particular point apart from that... but I remain in the position that rumours and gut feelings are not good bases upon which to craft policy. Is this the article you were referring to? It's the only one I saw... but the only suppositions of weapons development that I found were in the comments at the bottom of the piece.

www.isohunt.com

Could you post a link to the news source? I don't think there's any cause for alarm just yet... Iran has given full inspection privileges to the UN and as far as has been concluded, their energy programme is not capable of producing weapons-grade uranium. Really, any nuclear power plant has the potential of producing weapons-grade uranium unless it's a light-water reactor, which costs like ten times as much to start up and run. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8275997.stm QUOTE "We don't have any problems with inspections of the facility. We have no fears," he said, referring to calls for immediate access to the site by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN watchdog. http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middlee...1942180430.html The only reason people are getting alarmed is because this is a new plant that was only revealed a few weeks before the beginning of production, which they are perfectly within international law to do. Personally, I think this is simply a case of Ahmadinejad thumbing his nose at his critics by being difficult... and I would hope that Obama and other world leaders realize this. I'm no proponent of Tehran or Ahmadinejad, but I have to call this statement by Western-puppet Ban Ki-Moon as complete bullshit. QUOTE UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed "grave concern" over Tehran's continued uranium enrichment activities, and said: "The burden of proof is on Iran". I mean seriously. I'm not comfortable with the idea of a nuclear Iran in its present corrupt state, but apart from allowing full inspection rights, how exactly is Tehran expected to provide evidence for the non-existence of something? Completely ludicrous.

QUOTE (Tati @ Sep 25 2009, 06:15 PM) This confuses me. Is it supposed to be sexy? What is it made of? Why would anyone want that? Honestly... I could see it being a big turn on if it was a really hilarious model. Comedy = sexy.

QUOTE A pubic wig or merkin as it was earlier known made its debut in 1450. It was used as a device to cover syphilitic pustules and gonorrheal warts in the genital area. In its contemporary form, the merkin is used as a part of erotic play, and it has also crossed over the boundaries of intimate wear into some mainstream genres of dress. Cool beans.

A big spider?

QUOTE (Dr. B @ Sep 23 2009, 12:49 AM) I swear I'll have something constructive to say this weekend. .........................terr .............ible.

QUOTE (joytron @ Sep 23 2009, 10:12 AM) if in your heart, there is someone you are destined to be you should make an effort at every crossroads to define that person. That if there is someone that you wish to be that it takes a determination to choose the path that that person would choose regardless of the decisions that you would naturally make. I would say that to become who you feel compelled to be is in effect rejecting inclination and choosing duty (see principle 3). That is assuming that the calling in question is one of service... I don't know if there is any other kind. QUOTE (joytron @ Sep 23 2009, 10:12 AM) I also have a personal connection with your second value, growing up with co-dependent parents (they are seriously working on that which i find admirable) you could not even imagine how important this value is. I have noticed, partially from the perspective of my mother that if you live a life devoted to pleasing those around you, you will only be let down by them and they will only be let down by you. You do no good deed by vicariously living someone else's life, they can only be harmed by your mothering hand. I myself feel that I have a lot of catching up to do only because life's greatest struggles were taken care of before I was overwhelmed. I struggle this everyday, as in life where i would refuse help, I am all to eager to hand it out. principles, not values It's probably because I just watched the show in question... but have you seen House? The second principle is essentially prescribing to be like House. QUOTE (joytron @ Sep 23 2009, 10:12 AM) Your first value had an entirely diffferent connection with me and I can only assume you have a history with entheogens. While for the sake of the forum I will not delve to deep, I believe that by being in an altered conscious that can be gained from any multitude of ways you are able to view the world from a perspective that is unique. Not particularly... the first principle is the product of objective reasoning. I am firmly comfortable saying that any attempt to look externally for truth is flawed, and in this I'm including spirituality, psychedelics, Fox News, and etcetera. This is not to say that "faith" is "bad"... if that is how someone self-identifies, or finds meaning, then so be it. It simply means that by understanding all positions, all opinions, all roles, and all ethics as relatively based, we can get the greatest understanding of truth that is possible to us, as well as avoid negativity and conflict. I could give myriad examples... but one of my favourites is from when I was just 16 years old, and had my car stereo stolen a couple of days after I had bought and installed it. By this time in life I'd seen other people become furious at having their personal "security" infringed upon, people many decades older than myself. I understood that getting angry was the "normal" social reaction to my situation. But at the same time, I realized that my misfortune was brought by Western society, to which I had subscribed, and not by any person or persons. I could therefore perceive not only that the act was no one's fault, but also that I was partly to blame for it. For those who live in the West... our civilization is based on materialism, or consumerism, or hyperconsumerism. It's a societal system where we exchange our effort and/or skills for material credit according to the opportunities and advantages we were born with. At the same time, we're socialized to understand that the only success we can achieve is material success. Even at 16, though I could not have articulated it like this, I understood that this was a system which necessitated that disadvantaged members of society deviated from social norms in order to achieve material success (ie crime), and that by working, earning and consuming in that society, I was partly to blame. It was a half truth that some douche had broken into my car and stolen my stereo... if I had accepted it as a truth, I would have gotten angry, felt victimized, been conflictual. By accepting the half truth as a half truth, I felt peace. I hope that kind of illustrates what I mean by understanding half-truths as they are, and how it leads away from conflict to peace. I have studied peace and conflict for almost six years at the undergraduate and graduate level, under some of the greatest minds in the world... and I do not know of a conflict which is not rooted primarily in people seeing half-truths as truths. QUOTE (joytron @ Sep 23 2009, 10:12 AM) As soon as you accept that you have the power to view a event from more than one perspective you can only assume that that event produces a unique perspective to everyone else that witnesses it. If you can witness the world in an entirely new light it one must imagine how much different that world must be to someone with an entirely different history. This will eventually lead to an understanding that the earth is not black in white, that a single truth is composed of an infinite number of unique views of that truth. I'm not as certain of the uniqueness of people as you... or that I'm comfortable with getting this theoretical wink.gif I'm a practical pragmatist. But I guess that at the most fundamental level you get what I mean; I apply this principle more to large scale issues than personal differences in opinion... eg, if I'm sitting down with the leaders of Sudanese rebel factions, trying to find common ground to negotiate a peace accord, or with the leaders of Israel and Palestine, etc. But most importantly it's critical for attitude, and you seem to get that. QUOTE (joytron @ Sep 23 2009, 10:12 AM) In value 5 I am not sure if I entirely agree. While I am def. in some ways a skeptic (that comes from my dad, one of his greatest character building exercises in which he would get us to believe something that defied all logic teaching us to be mistrustful of everything especially authority) , I feel that life should be a balance of faith and science. I think issues occur when the two are confused. Many great discoveries have been made that go against "proof" simply because someone had the balls to stand up in what the believed in solely based on intuition. In areas based on quantitative study, it is obvious how far back science can be set when blind faith in the face of logic is pursued but life is not always logical. The relationships I have had with people who who work in these fields and who few other people like they work are always lacking. By trying to make relationships logical a spark is lost, some things require you to dive in headfirst, trusting your intuition regardless of evidence. Before my brief answer... let me qualify. The fifth principle is not necessarily a condemnation of faith, though it's hard for me to imagine any compatibility between my principles and religiosity. I think that religion is inherently fine, for those people who can and/or need to find meaning and happiness in life externally, I would never begrudge them for it. These seven principles are for hawks, not the doves they must protect. That said... for my response I channel Bertrand Russell. "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index to his desires". People believe in shit like Astrology or True Love or Organic Food because they desperately want to. The third principle explains how duty and desire can never coincide... the fifth simply shows how this extends to gullibility. QUOTE (joytron @ Sep 23 2009, 10:12 AM) that took way to long, care to explain your 3rd value, i think i am in over my head. Certainly, it's pretty simple. This is the one that borrows from Kant. QUOTE (gaia.plateau @ Sep 18 2009, 01:03 AM) 3. There is inclination and there is duty; this is a dichotomy. If duty is endeavoured out of inclination, it is false. If duty is endeavoured solemnly, it is service. Inclination is the path of relative wrong, service is the path of relative right. Put very simply, there is duty and there is desire. In order to do service, one must adhere to duty without desire. I am comfortable estimating that 99% of people or more are incapable of doing this. Let me give you an example. If you give food to the homeless, or if you volunteer to help the elderly or autistic children, or whatever example you want to come up with... and you do it because it makes you feel good, it is not service, it is indulgence in inclination. If you do these things for a point on your resume, or because you want someone to like you, or because you're going to get something out of it, it is not service, it is indulgence in inclination. Kant said that only though "Moral Duty", which is duty completely free of desire, can one be truly "moral". I don't agree with the spiritual overtones, but the principle is sound; service must be truly altruistic, truly selfless. You may ask... "why would" or even "how could anyone do that?". I point back to this: QUOTE (joytron @ Sep 23 2009, 10:12 AM) if in your heart, there is someone you are destined to be you should make an effort at every crossroads to define that person. That if there is someone that you wish to be that it takes a determination to choose the path that that person would choose regardless of the decisions that you would naturally make. Service, altruism, selflessness... requires sacrifice without getting anything in return. It must be done in solemnity. And as far as I have managed to imagine, it can only be practically done when someone is called to do it. Again, it's probably because I just watched it but think about the character of Gregory House. Why does he do what he does? In the show, it's speculated that he's obsessed with "puzzles", with "mystery", and with solving difficult diagnostic problems. I don't buy this explanation however, or that a person could maintain genuine interest in an obsession so simple, varying and unrewarding. I think the character House does what he does, because he knows that no one else can do it, and it is therefore his duty. In the show, he takes absolutely no pleasure from the job, risking his life many times and being constantly miserable because of it. But it's his calling, and to ignore your calling is to sacrifice all meaning. QUOTE (joytron @ Sep 23 2009, 10:12 AM) Pardon the informality and spelling as I jsut finished an essay on the meaning of my life stood-a loaded gun (which i consequentially thought had no meaning) Life has no meaning. We can find no meaning. Meaning must be made. This necessary conclusion to most of our history's philosophy has been an important influence for me, and I guess for these principles we're now discussing as well. Interestingly enough from a person who hasn't had television for over six years... I have another television reference for you; I enjoy the simplicity of it, and how succinctly it puts this idea. "If nothing we do matters... then the only thing that matters is what we do".

QUOTE (Stuie @ Sep 18 2009, 01:36 PM) Have some friends in DFW that go to roller derby's all the time, never been myself. Ellen Page's Best Roll was in a movie called "Hard Candy" - Yall should watch it. Hard Candy = Incredible.

QUOTE (joytron @ Sep 22 2009, 07:49 PM) if you are serious let me know. I would love to work for someone like you, right now i am studying environmental science and policy(working towards marine law), I have next to nothing as far as work experience, and my grades are pretty average, but i have a feeling we would get a long (hey thats got to count for something). Duties would include following me around with a fiddle, playing my theme song wherever I go, as well as mixing my drinks, doing my dishes, BJs and organizing my schedule. ... yeah I was fooling you i has no money.

Come and work for me. I will hire you.

I'm really upset that this thread is not about an actual sloth.

QUOTE (Dr. B @ Sep 20 2009, 06:24 PM) i wonder what gaia thinks of mma...? /bait. I enjoy watching it at the bars or whatever, but I probly wouldnt order it for my own viewing pleasure. There's nothing wrong with lay speech for lay people; if my doctor criticized me for saying that I had a sore throat instead of "streptococcal pharyngitis" I would slap him.

Arrgh... we'll not be havin' this now th'day in me speech, laddies, fer there be pressin' impahrtint matters n' maidens t'tend'tah. 'Owever, I be havin' nae problem with lettin' me pirate spirit sail free in this mopping silly place.

QUOTE (Dr. B @ Sep 18 2009, 01:12 PM) QUOTE (gaia.plateau @ Sep 17 2009, 05:01 PM) maybe I'll go as Hitler or something.do not like Avast! Twas clearly irony, ye silly salty sea dog!

QUOTE (Balthazar @ Sep 19 2009, 07:43 AM) Principles 2-7 does seem to be absolute in so far as they do say what you should and what you shouldn't. But as I understood it, these are principles you try to live by, not principles you would claim are The one and only Truth. Yarr, but they do prescribe certain actions without regard to context, this be the core o universalism in thought, hearty. We doesn't suppose that any sane philosopher in history thought 'e 'ad the onesy truth in 'is hands, but rather 'isown perception o' truth. QUOTE (Balthazar @ Sep 19 2009, 07:43 AM) utilitarianism and kantianism. Arrgh, tagetcha off on the right foot fer yer future philosophical pursuits, I feel compelled to offer ye a marr useful set o' names fer these: teleology and deontology. N' by the by, although I've reckoned many vastly intelligent people pronounce it [Kahnt], balls n blubber t'that nonsense, it's [Kawnt]. QUOTE (Balthazar @ Sep 19 2009, 07:43 AM) To me, the first of your principles seems like the most fundamental one, because it clearly influences just about everything else. Also, regarding "... appreciating their values because you don't have any",aren't there lots of values in principles 2-7? I think you're right about it being possible to avoid moral entirely, but is it possible to avoid values? "... by accepting that the majority of people seem to tend toward one way in their moralization, and that their values should be appreciated even if you don't share them" - isn't this in itself a value? Using the opinion of the majority as a guideline, surely that must stem from a value? As a side note, I will begin reading Tao Teh Ching today. Tzu has been laying on the shelf way to long, and I do find what (little) I have read about Taoism to be very intriguing. Yarr, that be the salient principle, me hearty. 'Owever, fer the second point ye be makin', I must be clarifyin' a wee somethin'. Morals be the sense of ethics we feel intrinsically... values be the sense of ethics we inherit from family, friends, teachers and culture... and principles be the sense of ethics we reason and develop for ourselves. Some o' us salty sea dogs ne'r felt the first, n' the second is a highly subjective matter. So I be repeatin', 2-7 are principles, n' not values. Ye'll like the TTC, me hearty. Thir's not a place I go without it.

QUOTE (Balthazar @ Sep 18 2009, 03:28 PM) While I do agree with the gist of what you're saying, I don't find it entirely unproblematic to to appreciate "their values ... even if you don't share them" as much as I would like to be able to do that. It isn't a matter of appreciating their values even if you don't share them... so much as it is appreciating their values because you don't have any. This is, after all, a formulation for morally vacuous individuals QUOTE (Balthazar @ Sep 18 2009, 03:28 PM) I do not believe in absolute truths, and I consider myself a relativist in so far as I don't believe in "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" as absolute sizes. Therefor I don't consider my culture, opinions, taste in arts or anything else to be "better" than anyone else's, it's simply different. However, on more than one occasion I've stumbled upon some questions I find difficult. While it is clear to me, in theory, what principles I believe in and how I chose to view the world, I often find that, in practice, I fail to deliver. For instance, there are some traditions I cannot "appreciate" (I do realize that you don't mean this in the sense of "enjoy") no matter how I look at them. Typically people talk about the difference of respect and tolerance. So while I respect certain values (I guess you could say I would respect all of your principles) there are a lot of values or traditions that I don't respect, but I do tolerate most of them, and I try to keep my personal feelings about them to myself (unless, of course, these are directly harmful to others). I would also "act ... to serve others and never to please them", and give my honest opinion if I'm in disagreement with someone (there are exceptions, like when I'm trying to score (in lack of a less sleazy word) a girl at a party etc, I might choose to throw out the honesty and constructive critique if it serves my purpose, but in general I try to fulfill what I see as an obligation of honesty). But of course, I would never claim that my values were more "true" or "better" than others. Cultural values are contradictory... to be as objective as possible, I think we need to shave off some fringe exceptions such as cannibalism in Papua New Guinea and Mercy Killing in China, and then cancel out contradictions. Really more of a detail than an issue. The purpose of the first principle is this: for the one who understands that absolute truths are impossible, certainty becomes ridiculous. For the one who understands certainty to be ridiculous, it is necessary to at least partially agree with anyone, in any situation, regardless of circumstance. For the one who partially agrees with everyone, there remains no room for violence. Does that make any sense? I just made that up as I went. QUOTE (Balthazar @ Sep 18 2009, 03:28 PM) However, there are problematic cases. Circumcision of girls is one of them (this is, of course, based on feelings). Now, I don't consider this to be "right" or "wrong" as if there was any universal truth, but it's definitely something that repulse me. Here's where I find my relativism to be a bit problematic. Say there were fundamentalist religious groups receiving state support, for example a extreme Islamic organization expressing support for death penalties for homosexuality, or a white nationalism group spreading racist propaganda. I would not in any way want to restrict peoples right to an opinion, or freedom of speech, and I would still not talk about "right" or "wrong". But I would be very bothered if one of these groups got state funding. Hell, I reacted when I found out that Norway had major investments in a Israeli electric company (shutting of power in the Palestinian territories on several occasions creating a living hell for those living there). And I have a hard time arguing about this without any kind of moral underneath it. I feel comfortable categorizing these as "fringe exceptions" which go against the overwhelming majority of normal humans who morally sense that the infliction of suffering upon another person is wrong. It's like a fraction of a percentage point that we're talking about. QUOTE (Balthazar @ Sep 18 2009, 03:28 PM) I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I'm disagreeing with myself. Frankly I'm not much of a philosopher (and I have not read 1% of the books I should read on the subject), and I have a somewhat fragmented list of principles. I might be misunderstanding some basic stuff about morality and "relativism vs absolutism" here. I wouldn't call this a matter of relativism vs absolutism... nor characterize these principles as relativistic. Note that principles 2-7 is absolute, while principle 1 is relative. They're simply the ideas which I live by, never compromise, and hopefully would die for. Think of it as a guide for hawks who understand that protecting doves is far more fulfilling than hunting them.

Edit: Addendum: I don't know if that totally answered your question. It's really the prescription for putting the rest of the principles into action. For example, I think that the world would be better and we would find more meaning in life, if everyone lived for one another instead of themselves. Or if everyone could be perfectly light and jovial about any subject, with any person. Or if we could eradicate our prickly armours of insecurity, intolerance and suspicion. I act and speak as though these things were true, and hope to make a positive difference toward that world regardless of how many people think I'm insane. I think you can avoid morals entirely when talking about how the world should be, by accepting that the majority of people seem to tend toward one way in their moralization, and that their values should be appreciated even if you don't share them. For example, you could reason... "It is commonly accepted that most people in the world inherently feel that murder and inflicted suffering are wrong without exception. If we can accept this as given, we can then conclude that any initiation of violence should be categorically condemned". Or you can employ the CI, flawed though it may be. Or, most simply by my formula, refer to principle 1. I believe that it is impossible to infringe on the traditional, popular and intrinsic paradigm of morality while being cognitive of relative right; Certainty is the root of all evil.

I mean 'as you think it should be' or 'as you wish it were'. If you think the world would be a better place if everyone was open, honest and up front with one another, or if you think that everyone should do some random act of kindness of someone every day, or if you think that we should spend all our days in drunken orgies, begin those changes yourself and serve as an example. In a manner of speaking it means to defy the "Prisoner's Dilemma"; reject the negative reality and be prepared to make any sacrifice to see a more positive one realized.