Oct 12, 2007
The biggest bullcrap of all of this is how juvenile Bush is acting because Congress is doing their jobs. Congress has the right to deny any candidate for department head with cause. Their denial definitely have valid cause. Look at how Bush is acting though: vetoing even the most necessary bills (such as the "water projects" bill). I truly hope it gets overridden so he starts to recognize his place, and that this is more to the government than just the executive branch. (Nov 2, 2007 | post #58)
I was going to make a similar comment to this earlier. Even at level five, self-governance would be so common. There would, however, still be a need for a legal system. Especially in a diversified culture, the principles that are to dictate everyone's actions will be different. Even in the hypothetical that everyone would be focusing on the same level of abstraction, crime would still exist, but at a MUCH lower level (almost non-existent). It would only be when cultural lines are blurred (in "the borderlands") that a major dilemma exists internally. Through self-critical dialogue, we can adjust to these changes, but it is at the immediate time that you are confronted with a new culture that crime may occur. I forget what my main point was, but that's okay. There's some info for you all. I think my main point was that, yes, people wouldn't want to obey the government; but since everyone is at a high moral level, self-governance will command all. I don't even want to think about how long ethical committees would take to decide things. lol. That would be intense (Nov 2, 2007 | post #39)
Look at both the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments on social institutions and authority. Very few people can stick to their principles. Very few people even reach Kohlberg's developmental stage to be able to reflect on their principles. Because most of us only blatantly reach the Good Boy/Good Girl or Law & Order stage, we don't make the principles our own; we don't make them personal. I believe it is because of this, people are so vulnerable to authority. (Nov 1, 2007 | post #10)
This is very agreeable. I'm with you 100% on this. Poor misguided souls are all the rest---poor misguided souls. (Oct 31, 2007 | post #43)
I definitely knew the answers to my first questions. I was just expressing that I would like to know more; but how are we to know more with such controlled media and gov't information? I find it much more fascinating to read foreign newspapers because of their better access to information that is then released to the public. I shame our gov't for keeping us in the dark on so much. It's not just the Bush admin., but all of them. I understand where you're coming from on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yes, in 2005 he said Israel should be wiped off the map. Yes, he is slightly an extremist. From everything I read, he never said he would build nuclear weapons. The former Ayatollah Khomeini said that he would build and use nuclear weapons, and was far more intent on wiping Israel and the U.S. out of existence. Ahmadinejad has made some foolish statements that I don't agree with (e.g., that the holocaust never happened), but is trying to, from what it seems, advance the nation of Iran. Do you think it's right that they're trying to move out of industrialism and we're trying to stop them? They are trying to progress as a nation, and we should give them a chance. Sounds like something the Iraqi people should be doing. Israel has one of the best armies (for its population) in the world, and most likely has nuclear weapons (even though they deny it), and can take care of themselves. Also, he never threatened any of those things. His statements were normative. "Israel should be wiped off the map." If you find any news article that you find him saying, "We will use nuclear weapons," or something else along those lines, please give me the link. I think the U.N. and U.S. actions are enticing Iran into a fight. Should Iran have to fight its freedom as a sovereign? It's already a sovereign state, and we, as an external nation have NO RIGHT to control another sovereign. What happened when England tried to control the colonies? The Declaration of Independence and War. Well, in Iran you won't get a Dec. of Ind. first because they are, supposedly, an independent nation; you will just get war by trying to control them; and they have every right to start one with the nations that are trying to control them if their diplomatic efforts fail. And those efforts are failing because they are falling on deaf ears. What happened last time Ahmadinejad spoke at the U.N. General Assembly? All of the U.S. representatives were ordered to walk out. Shouldn't we at least be listening to what he has to say? You don't prove someone wrong by ignoring them; you debate them. Even when Ahmadinejad came to debate at Columbia University recently, you have the moronic President of the U. blatantly criticizing him, not on the issues, but as a person. That man was a dishonor to our nation, speaking to the head of another nation like that, and he was applauded for is foolish disrespect and ad hominem abusive manor. Any presidential candidate that says we shouldn't talk with "evil" regimes loses some of my respect. How are we to solve anything without diplomacy? The world isn't only screwed up because of other nations, but our own as well. (Oct 31, 2007 | post #3)
qwerty...have you ever played Myth II online? (Oct 29, 2007 | post #23)
I only bow to other men. It is a sign of honor and dignity. I bow to no god. (Oct 29, 2007 | post #6)
Very correct Razmataz; and it looks like we're heading to the same place with Iran. What a pity. Are we going to try to overthrow one of the best and most productive governments Iran has ever had? Good move Bush Administration. (Oct 29, 2007 | post #2)
What do all these politicians know that I don't? Why is Iran seen as such a threat? I'm aware of former conflicts and dangers that Iran WAS, but that was under a politically far different regime than the current one. I think the real threat is that Iran is taking a leading role in trying to strengthen the ties between Middle Eastern countries. They are trying to emerge as a progressive state in several areas of industry, and we're oppressing them. (Oct 29, 2007 | post #1)
Why do Christians attack Muslims? Because they think they are right about God and religion; while Muslims think they are right about God and religion. Hmmmm...what a dilemma. Religion has corrupted many who believe. (Oct 29, 2007 | post #3)
It natural of all followers of religion, and non-believers, to be a bit arrogant about their ways. Everyone wants to believe they are right. It is irrational to believe is something whole-heartedly, and believe that it is wrong. (Oct 29, 2007 | post #3)
Finally, somebody else on this thread with an intelligent, rational mind. (Oct 28, 2007 | post #45)
No, I'm trying to get people to use some freaking common sense and logical arguments, besides just saying, "this thread is digusting." But it is to no avail. (Oct 28, 2007 | post #39)
You may see it as "nitpicking, " but it's the technical error everyone on this thread is making, and should be made aware of. Can you judge a disorder as morally right or wrong? Have you heard of "ought implies can?" You cannot blame people when they don't have the mental or physical capacity to live up to moral standards. (Oct 28, 2007 | post #36)
Autonomy is key to prosperity
Not that large of a town.
Outdoor scenery is spectacular here.
I Belong To:
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm probably studying, playing a sport, watching television, reading news, or playing a video game (or snowboarding when winter comes around).
Read My Forum Posts Because:
I will back my claims with good reasoning
I'm Listening To:
The hum of the air handlers
Read This Book:
"Ethics for Professionals in a Multicultural World"
The outdoors, and I should probably add in my wife too.
On My Mind:
"I sure hope Obama gets the ticket."
Blog / Website / Homepage:
I Believe In:
no God; the capability of every person to be better; and the sanctity that good moral institutions have.