New Testingstan

death to the bourgeoisie

Oxymoron wrote:Exactly.

Also, I love that map :

Now why would they be nervous, look at all the freedom around them!

adr wrote:death to the bourgeoisie

btw worrying about the people in the bourgeois class is actually the wrong place to look

it's the system that creates this class that needs to go. but death to the bourgeoisie is just another way of saying death to capitalism in my eyes so i'll have my fun


but like i've seen people complain about the sociopaths who head companies and stuff like that

they aren't the problem

the problem is that the system encourages this behavior. indeed, if you put anything before profits, you'll be outcompeted and eventually go out of business, replaced with someone mroe ruthless

survival of the most profitable is what leads to the psychos in business

not the other way around

I'm talking about the implicit idea that there's some kind of litmus test of having the right kind of government that Iran must pass before it is allowed into the global community clubhouse, with West presumably being the gatekeeper of the clubhouse and I'm betting the standards more or less coming down to "our values = better" (democracy good, seperation of church and state good etc.).

I'd just love to hear you try to explain how the two you named aren't.

Thanks for missing the point.

RyanThunder wrote:I'd just love to hear you try to explain how the two you named aren't.

The cliched lazy way would be to point out how completely subjective that is, but that's not really the point. The point is the whole implicit idea that the global community is a clubhouse with membership regulated by keymasters who can and should deny or permit you admission based on whether they ideologically approve of the way you run your own country.

I'm not even talking about the morality of this, it's just interesting how clearly this mindset reflects the perspective of a culture that has a strong universalizing sense of morality and that is used to being in power.

I'm gonna mention though I doubt it's going to be a very sustainable approach in the long run; it relies on the guys in charge of the clubhouse (iow the powerful states) sharing the key parts of your ideology.

RyanThunder wrote:

I'm talking about the implicit idea that there's some kind of litmus test of having the right kind of government that Iran must pass before it is allowed into the global community clubhouse, with West presumably being the gatekeeper of the clubhouse and I'm betting the standards more or less coming down to "our values = better" (democracy good, seperation of church and state good etc.).

I'd just love to hear you try to explain how the two you named aren't.

it is inconsistent with the principles of democracy to attempt to compel the popular will, which is one path the gatekeeper philosophy generally leads to. the other is rank hypocrisy, which is where we're currently at.

The UK has Bishops in the House of Lords, and our head of state is also the head of our national church (I would expect Iran to follow a broadly similar path, if it were left unmolested); and yet we seem to have far less problems with religious extremist nutters than the USA (with its separation of church and state), and actually somewhat less influence of the church in political affairs. I can't recall any mainstream politicians declaring their faith as a part of an election campaign.

Oxymoron wrote:Thanks for missing the point.

no u.

I refuse to be paralyzed by the pointless self-doubt of moral relativity.

It is true thinking in absolute terms is a great way to save one's mental energy.

only sith deal in absolutes

RyanThunder wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:Thanks for missing the point.

no u.

I refuse to be paralyzed by the pointless self-doubt of moral relativity.

So you go the other way, the path that leads to extremism?

isn't moral relativity the one where acts seem more acceptable as you accelerate towards the speed of light?

evilsoup wrote:isn't moral relativity the one where acts seem more acceptable as you accelerate towards the speed of light?

sure why not

evilsoup wrote:isn't moral relativity the one where acts seem more acceptable as you accelerate towards the speed of light?

I think thats future echoes.

i refuse to be paralyzed by the process of analyzing my own beliefs and ensuring my actions are actually in line with my professed ideals

Oxymoron wrote:It is true thinking in absolute terms is a great way to save one's mental energy.

its almost like you think you can avoid hard decisions by simply taking the most passive approach available

Aaron wrote:So you go the other way, the path that leads to extremism?

No, I make the best judgement I can based on the information I have.

Well considering the info we do have is largely supplied by the same group of bullshit artists that brought us the last two wars...I'd rather ask my dog for its opinion.

To be honest, I do not embarass myself with a "moral system". I just deal with things from instinct, following some basic rules, and sometimes using a bit of reason.

And when that don't work, I try to chat my way out.

Served me pretty well to this day.

RyanThunder wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:It is true thinking in absolute terms is a great way to save one's mental energy.

its almost like you think you can avoid hard decisions by simply taking the most passive approach available

Aaron wrote:So you go the other way, the path that leads to extremism?

No, I make the best judgement I can based on the information I have.

and then you run into a situation your absolute morals aren't equipped to handle and have a crisis of faith

RyanThunder wrote:its almost like you think you can avoid hard decisions by simply taking the most passive approach available

Because never thinking about why you do thing sure is an active approach. Right ?

Edit : oh, wait, I get it. You were talking about yourself, right ?

Oxymoron wrote:To be honest, I do not embarass myself with a "moral system". I just deal with things from instinct, following some basic rules, and sometimes using a bit of reason.

And when that don't work, I try to chat my way out.

Served me pretty well to this day.

Can I live with myself at the end of the day? Is this important enough to destroy another generation of young men?

I don't really understand morality but i try to get through the best I can.

oh, christ, you guys think i want NATO to invade iran or something, don't you?

i really hope you don't

Not really, no. You may be from Toronto but your not that dumb.

Aaron : that's pretty much the spirit, yes. When facing a new situation, until thinking something through, I'll trust my experience/conditionning.