Blatantly political rant

[Greg Anos]

Sorry I can't spell worth beans, and I type worse...sentient is the word I was staggering after.

First, I don't worry about the needs or feeling of a lump of rock. I considerate it inanimate. We can quibble over a virus...

Bacteria and up are animate to me. With all the rights and privileges conferred to the class. I am just pointing out that I don't draw a distinction between a rosebush and a rattlesnake, other that safety-wise. They are all a collection of living cells. And killing one set of cells is the same to me as another set of cells...(Have I killed to eat? Yes. However, like the Mikado, I draw no distinction between the sentence and who executes it. I accept the responsibility for the dead cells in the store that I buy for food...)

Sentient (or self-aware - I can spell that better). Where you draw the line is open to debate. I don't consider it a sharp line either... But, for convienence (another tought word to spell for me), I limit it currently to humans, because the issue was to try to answer DM, as best I could. It doesn't mean I'm logical, or right. Just trying to explain the "basis" for my world view.

Slayda, the tool part is vital, from my perspective. Are you "civilized" by being a domestic animal? I may or may not be "civilized", but I am definitely NOT a domestic animal. And you treat me as such at your own risk! But a large group of people do think that other humans are just a fancier, far more tricky, domestic animal; to be used when necessary for controller's ends, and then let go to fend for themselves until needed again. Once again, this is not a sharp line, but a spectrum, from slavery to telemarketing. They may think is OK if they get caught and used, they were just not tricky enough to get control; or they make think it's their inalienable right to control. I think that being self-aware grants one the dignity of not being treated as a domestic animal. That decision, or sense of dignity's existence, is the core nub of politics. Which was what I was trying to describe to DM.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sorry I can't spell worth beans, and I type worse...sentient is the word I was staggering after.

First, I don't worry about the needs or feeling of a lump of rock. I considerate it inanimate. We can quibble over a virus...

Bacteria and up are animate to me. With all the rights and privileges conferred to the class. I am just pointing out that I don't draw a distinction between a rosebush and a rattlesnake, other that safety-wise. They are all a collection of living cells. And killing one set of cells is the same to me as another set of cells...(Have I killed to eat? Yes. However, like the Mikado, I draw no distinction between the sentence and who executes it. I accept the responsibility for the dead cells in the store that I buy for food...)

Sentient (or self-aware - I can spell that better). Where you draw the line is open to debate. I don't consider it a sharp line either... But, for convienence (another tought word to spell for me), I limit it currently to humans, because the issue was to try to answer DM, as best I could. It doesn't mean I'm logical, or right. Just trying to explain the "basis" for my world view.

Slayda, the tool part is vital, from my perspective. Are you "civilized" by being a domestic animal? I may or may not be "civilized", but I am definitely NOT a domestic animal. And you treat me as such at your own risk! But a large group of people do think that other humans are just a fancier, far more tricky, domestic animal; to be used when necessary for controller's ends, and then let go to fend for themselves until needed again. Once again, this is not a sharp line, but a spectrum, from slavery to telemarketing. They may think is OK if they get caught and used, they were just not tricky enough to get control; or they make think it's their inalienable right to control. I think that being self-aware grants one the dignity of not being treated as a domestic animal. That decision, or sense of dignity's existence, is the core nub of politics. Which was what I was trying to describe to DM.

Well that you did ... My world view is just sooo very different from yours. Not saying one is better than the other ... just that they are really ... really ... different.

[Patricia]

Techically, 'sentient' means able to feel --ie capable of feeling pain. (It's not concerned with rationality.)

Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian philosopher argued that all sentient beings should have moral standing:


"The day may come when the rest of animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well a more conversible animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

(Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Ch. 18 - NB.. Bentham was writing before the abolition of slavery in Britain but after it had been abolished briefly during the French Revolution.)

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Techically, 'sentient' means able to feel --ie capable of feeling pain. (It's not concerned with rationality.)

Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian philosopher argued that all sentient beings should have moral standing:


"The day may come when the rest of animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well a more conversible animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

(Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Ch. 18 - NB.. Bentham was writing before the abolition of slavery in Britain but after it had been abolished briefly during the French Revolution.)

Hoooorah!!! Love that!! Absolutely LOVE THAT!!!

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Techically, 'sentient' means able to feel --ie capable of feeling pain. (It's not concerned with rationality.)

Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian philosopher argued that all sentient beings should have moral standing:


"The day may come when the rest of animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well a more conversible animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

(Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Ch. 18 - NB.. Bentham was writing before the abolition of slavery in Britain but after it had been abolished briefly during the French Revolution.)

patricia, i must spread some karma around before i give it to you again, but i wanted to, for this post.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Well that you did ... My world view is just sooo very different from yours. Not saying one is better than the other ... just that they are really ... really ... different.

Nor should they be the same...I just want to be allowed to live my life to my standard, respecting the right of others to do the same.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Nor should they be the same...I just want to be allowed to live my life to my standard, respecting the right of others to do the same.

I'll take that as meaning the right of others to live their lives to their own standards ... rather than the right of others to live life to your standard.

It's a noble ideal ... however, more often we see the breach rather than compliance. Let's face it ... we live in a country full of people who seem to be intent to impose their standards on much of the world ... on other people who might be quite content to live life by their own standards. Those folks doing the imposing like to call them "our" standards -- meaning the people of the United States, I suppose -- but most of what I see imposed has nothing to do with my standards.

I always get the jim-jams when someone refers to the United States as a "Christian nation." OK .... so when was the Bill of Rights repealed exactly?? I really should be kept abreast of this stuff (so I'll know when to start building a secret room I can hide in when they come for me).

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The closer we get to the day, and the worse the economy gets, the less I'm looking forward to it. Because as much as this country needs to change its habits, vis-a-vis energy usage, work habits, efficiency, recycling, and curbing pollution, as the economy gets worse the political rhetoric is giving up on green and increasingly talking about preserving the status quo, in order to not scare voters.

At this rate, I'll be surprised if either candidate can maintain a green platform into November, or into their administration.

Changing habits is all about one thing- money. Gasoline? Well, internal combustion engines run very well on hydrogen- take your standard car engine, put good seals on it, and it's ready to burn hydrogen. Hydrogen is a safer fuel, too- in a fiery wreck, it doesn't spray all over and stick on things, and people. Only problem is storage and distribution. Oh, and the petrol kings would lose their good profits....But I don't see much money being put into research to make hydrogen a viable fuel.

Pollution is almost a non-issue. Pollution is a cost of production- make the producers pay to eliminate it. Oh, but that alsways seems to upset the industrialist class.

Anyways, the real cure for many environmental and industrial ills is simply to lower the numbers of humans living on earth. But no one wants to touch that political hot potato....

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by WDecraene

You really think so ?? I think America's richest are preparing for dour times by just amassing a bigger and bigger fortune at the cost of all the rest of the population. And they seem to be getting away with it. And things are not going to change, no matter who's in the white house ...

Well, big fortunes are only useful so long as society is in existence. If things really get bad- anarchy, starvation, whatever- they suffer along with everyone else after 'freedom fighters' relieve them of their fortune at gunpoint...

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

They went to war and killed 4K+ of our soldiers. Based on a lie. And a lot of Iraqis, which number we don't see all that often. Based on a lie. Shame on all of us for letting this happen.

202 days, Matilda.

Well, things have gotten a little better- in the 1960s, they killed 55K soldiers in a futile war based on lies. IMHO, what is needed is a universal draft, no section 2 deferments- put everyone in harm's way, and let's see how well military adventurism works. It's easy to fight wars when the general population is not at risk- only those who volunttered for the duty. Volunteer armies are positively un-American.

But people really don't learn much. War was so much fun in the 1860s that many civilians took picnic lunches to a convenient ridge near Washington DC, overlooking a battle site, so that they could enjoy the mayhem. Is that much different than the vicarious thrills one gets through CNN war coverage? Sorry if I sound so depressing on this topic, but wars for profit (and so many of them are) are frankly disgusting.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Well, things have gotten a little better- in the 1960s, they killed 55K soldiers in a futile war based on lies. IMHO, what is needed is a universal draft, no section 2 deferments- put everyone in harm's way, and let's see how well military adventurism works. It's easy to fight wars when the general population is not at risk- only those who volunttered for the duty. Volunteer armies are positively un-American.

But people really don't learn much. War was so much fun in the 1860s that many civilians took picnic lunches to a convenient ridge near Washington DC, overlooking a battle site, so that they could enjoy the mayhem. Is that much different than the vicarious thrills one gets through CNN war coverage? Sorry if I sound so depressing on this topic, but wars for profit (and so many of them are) are frankly disgusting.

Has there honestly ever been a war that didn't have a profit motive on one side or the other ... or both?? Those fought over land, for power, even for religion ... it's really all just economics in the end. The other stuff is just a mass excuse for all the killing ... a way to differentiate war from murder.

Like they say out here .... "dead is dead, no matter how you got that way."

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I'll take that as meaning the right of others to live their lives to their own standards ... rather than the right of others to live life to your standard.

It's a noble ideal ... however, more often we see the breach rather than compliance. Let's face it ... we live in a country full of people who seem to be intent to impose their standards on much of the world ... on other people who might be quite content to live life by their own standards. Those folks doing the imposing like to call them "our" standards -- meaning the people of the United States, I suppose -- but most of what I see imposed has nothing to do with my standards.

I always get the jim-jams when someone refers to the United States as a "Christian nation." OK .... so when was the Bill of Rights repealed exactly?? I really should be kept abreast of this stuff (so I'll know when to start building a secret room I can hide in when they come for me).

I meant "to your own standard" as you corrected. (Not offended, I'm not the most skilled talker/writer.)

I resist the imposition of other standards on me, and when I really spell it out in unmistakeable language, the person who does the imposition suddenly gets bent out of shape, denying that that's what they're doing, when it's blatantly obvious that is what they're doing. They're upset that they got their hand caught in the cookie jar, so to speak...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Well, things have gotten a little better- in the 1960s, they killed 55K soldiers in a futile war based on lies. IMHO, what is needed is a universal draft, no section 2 deferments- put everyone in harm's way, and let's see how well military adventurism works. It's easy to fight wars when the general population is not at risk- only those who volunttered for the duty. Volunteer armies are positively un-American.

Or put the right to vote granted only by having volunteered, with nobody being denied the chance. Read Heinlein's Starship Troopers.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sentient (or self-aware - I can spell that better). Where you draw the line is open to debate. I don't consider it a sharp line either... But, for convienence (another tought word to spell for me), I limit it currently to humans, because the issue was to try to answer DM, as best I could. It doesn't mean I'm logical, or right. Just trying to explain the "basis" for my world view.

I thank you for the attempt to answer, though the answer you gave wasn't quite what I was trying to find out. I think you did a decent job of explaining the rational basis for behavior you consider ethical, but the behavior I'm interested in tends not to happen on the rational level.

I sometimes call mankind the "rationalizing animal". Decisions tend to be made on a gut level. Much of what passes for rational thought consists of attempts after the fact to justify what we've already decided to do, and to demonstrate why it's not merely a valid course of action, but the best one possible under the circumstances. It happens after the decision is made, not before.

As mentioned elsewhere, we all have an unconscious conception of who we are and how we fit into the world around us that colors our perceptions and influences our behavior. And we seek above all to defend that belief. (Modern druidism, incidentally, calls that the "primary protective decision".)

Consider the tedious folks (whom you've probably run into) whose basic belief about others is "They're all a bunch of dirty so-and-sos who will shaft you if they get a chance!" Such folks tend to set themselves up to get shafted, because what they want is not to avoid getting shafted. What they really want is to be shafted so they can say "You see? I was right! They are all a bunch of dirty so-and-sos!" They seek evidence that they are correct in their worldview. My concern is where they got that belief in the first place.

Worldviews somewhat out of phase with reality produce behavior we call neuroses. Worldviews really out of phase with reality produce behavior we call psychoses. Part of the job of psychiatry is making that unconscious worldview conscious and explicit, so it may be examined and (hopefully) modified when it produces behavior that is harmful. Challenging someone's worldview can produce extreme and even violent responses, so psychiatry can be a dangerous profession.

Consider the folks who lay the blame for a lot of ills on greedy corporations, who they feel are attempting to influence the law and manipulate the economy in the service of higher profits, and that they are getting hurt in the process. It certainly happens in particular, and the financial pages of the newspapers tend to have stories about just such actions. But generalizing from the particular is always risky, and when I encounter folks who assume all corporations behave like that and cast themselves as the victims, I have to ask "Why do you make that assumption?"

Digging for the underlying worldview that produces particular responses is always a laborious task, because the first challenge is getting a clear articulation of a particular gut level belief, and the second is getting a coherent response about why that belief is held.

I heard about an elegant psychiatric technique intended to help the psychiatrist understand the patient's worldview. The question for the patient was "Pretend your life is a fairy tale. Which fairy tale is it, and which character are you?" The responses could be fascinating.
______
Dennis

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I am not a peacenik. I believe in the use of military when it is not possible to further our goals diplomatically. I believe that diplomacy is the ultimate way of getting us to where we need to be, but that sometimes it is necessary to give them a good bonking in order to gain their attention.

But let's just be circumspect in why we do what we do. The war in Iraq has wasted so many of our resources that we are not able to get what we really need form all this: security by means of projection of force.

I'm a peacenik, because I think that if peace is reasonably possible, that it's the path to choose. War is a messy affair, with dead bodies and blown off limbs and sucking chest wounds. Avoid it if you can. I also believe that, if one fights a war, one should plan well and win it. I haven't seen good planning in our "war on terror."

Want to prevent aircraft hijackings? Arm the pilots (this stopped the "skyjjackings" to Cuba in the 70s), teach the pilots defensive maneuvers (remember when a Chinese pilot foiled a hijacking a few years back by rapid maneuvers of the aircraft that broke their necks?), perhaps install a device that would allow the flight crew to depressurize the aircraft during a hijack attempt. Hard to stick your pistol in the pilot's face when you can't breathe. And look at how el Al handles security- they don't care if it isn't politically correct to strip search and anal-probe passenger if he fits a terrorist profile. El Al hasn't had a plane hijacked recently.

Want to defeat terrorists (Taliban/al qaeda) in Afghanistan? Bomb the Hindu Kush with very dirty nuclear devices. When they pop their heads out of their caves and breathe in some radioactive cobalt isotopes, they'll live for a few weeks if they are unlucky. Pump mustard gas into their caves, or sarin, or VX. Mine the area with VX gas bombs. Don't waste troops hunting them on their turf. No one- not the British nor even the Soviets- succeeded with that strategy. Fight to win- not using their rules.

And finally, target the countries that support terror, no matter who they are. Let them understand that they take the beating if terrorist attacks occur, even if they are our "friends" like Saudia Arabia (this nation supports terrorists with a great deal of cash- this is where Osama comes from). Not many people will support these towel-wearing boneheads if they might die by doing so.

Sounds tough, doesn't it? But it would work better than our current protocols. Why did we choose our current approach? Well, it is great for funding of the military and various "alphabet agencies". Doesn't necessarily win the war, though.