REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

It's not all about Trump. Or, at least, it shouldn't be.

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, October 16, 2021 09:18
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4741
PAGE 2 of 3

Saturday, October 2, 2021 9:06 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

6IXSTRINGJACK:
The problem is all the earmarks and pork they pass.
Here's one I know I mentioned before, but forgot to put it on my list above...
Termination of bundling shit together. Every single thing that ever gets passed is voted on individually and on its own merit.
All they do now is barter for shit they want with OUR money. That's why nobody is happy with how the money is spent and why Congress always has approval ratings in the low double digits no matter who's in control.

SECOND: Write 50 bills, each bill very simple because the bill is targeting one state. Those 50 bills will get votes mainly from Congressmen of 1 state and the 50 bills will not pass. Write 1 bill, targeting 50 states, which will be a very long and complicated bill to write. That bill will get votes from Congressmen in many states, which might be enough to pass.

Your choice is to make bills short, simple, easy to understand, and unlikely to pass because the other 49 states' Congressmen aren't interested in your dull problems or paying for your stupid solutions. Or write long and complicated bills that might have something another state's Congressmen want enough to give you what you want for your state.

SECOND. unfortunately your argument and SIX's "fix" to the budget process are easily gotten around, and it's called "logrolling", where individual Congresspeople simply trade votes: "You vote for my pork and Ill vote for yours".

Admittedly more difficult when talking about several hundred different individuals, but still do-able.

To some extent, Congresspeople are voting their district's/state's pocketbook, not for the general welfare of the country, so they can go back to their (wealthier) backers back home and say = "See, I brought six contracts for military weapons systems" or "See, I brought UBI for the next six months".

Nobody is thinking, or voting for, long-term national priorities. In this case, it's an issue with how Congress is constructed, since each Congressperson is beholden to their district's/ state's contributors.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 9:10 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

6IXSTRINGJACK:
The problem is all the earmarks and pork they pass.
Here's one I know I mentioned before, but forgot to put it on my list above...
Termination of bundling shit together. Every single thing that ever gets passed is voted on individually and on its own merit.
All they do now is barter for shit they want with OUR money. That's why nobody is happy with how the money is spent and why Congress always has approval ratings in the low double digits no matter who's in control.

SECOND: Write 50 bills, each bill very simple because the bill is targeting one state. Those 50 bills will get votes mainly from Congressmen of 1 state and the 50 bills will not pass. Write 1 bill, targeting 50 states, which will be a very long and complicated bill to write. That bill will get votes from Congressmen in many states, which might be enough to pass.

Your choice is to make bills short, simple, easy to understand, and unlikely to pass because the other 49 states' Congressmen aren't interested in your dull problems or paying for your stupid solutions. Or write long and complicated bills that might have something another state's Congressmen want enough to give you what you want for your state.

SECOND. unfortunately your argument and SIX's "fix" to the budget process are easily gotten around, and it's called "logrolling", where individual Congresspeople simply trade votes: "You vote for my pork and Ill vote for yours".



This would still be an improvement from the way it's currently done.

At least we'd know that people were reading the damn things before passing them.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 12:00 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Government's job as stated in the Constitution: ... form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ...

I don't have a problem with that. The writers of the Constitution recognized that government had a job looking after the country as a whole, doing things that individuals, states, and businesses couldn't do. They seemed to intuitively grasp that there was a thing such as the common good, that Amartya Sen would later call the 'public good'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 12:21 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


You and Amartya Sen are wrong.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 3:31 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So while in general I think government should run a balanced budget, I think there should be exceptions.

And, no, not to protect the banks from their excesses and to make the rich richer.

So OOC when -if ever- should a government spend in deficit, and why? (If ever)

If not, why not?

The purpose and function of Federal government is not "public good"

There is no excuse in the past 15 years for having any deficit.


To attempt to thwart the unstoppable Nazi war machine, and the Imperial Japanese, is a worthwhile reason. Of course, Sigs and kiki will object to
this, demanding nothing be spent until the gestapo are at their doorstep. And then they will merely want funding for everybody to speak German.


If 50 spending bills do not pass, that is not a problem. That is a good start.



Government needs to be reduced. Government is a parasite, a succubus on the economy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 3:35 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

6IX4. If you're not a pedophile, rapist, murderer or dealer of hard core drugs that are still illegal, you get discharged from prison immediately. If you spent time for dealing weed, you get back pay for all the years you lost paid for with tax dollars that hypocrites are raking in now with weed sales.


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I guess "drug crimes" is where you and JSF agree.



Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What kind of drugs are you high on?
I fairly clearly stated to leave all of the drug criminals incarcerated - they belong there, whereas innocent people do not belong there.
6ix wants not only all drug criminals to walk free, but also for the government to encourage them to commit mor4 crimes, and also for the government to pay for them to commit more crimes, because of all of the criminal activity they have been missing out on.
Those are pretty much polar opposites on the subject.



Lie.

I want ONLY drug "criminals" to walk and be made whole for for either dealing or possession

You claim lie, and then you repeat what I just posted.


Criminals saw a crime to commit. Criminals perpetrated those crimes. Criminals were convicted.
You stated that you want the criminals to roam free. And also, to be paid, by the state, for all of the lost time that they could have been committing more crimes. And also to now go forth and commit more crimes.

I don't agree with that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 4:32 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

6IX4. If you're not a pedophile, rapist, murderer or dealer of hard core drugs that are still illegal, you get discharged from prison immediately. If you spent time for dealing weed, you get back pay for all the years you lost paid for with tax dollars that hypocrites are raking in now with weed sales.


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I guess "drug crimes" is where you and JSF agree.



Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What kind of drugs are you high on?
I fairly clearly stated to leave all of the drug criminals incarcerated - they belong there, whereas innocent people do not belong there.
6ix wants not only all drug criminals to walk free, but also for the government to encourage them to commit mor4 crimes, and also for the government to pay for them to commit more crimes, because of all of the criminal activity they have been missing out on.
Those are pretty much polar opposites on the subject.



Lie.

I want ONLY drug "criminals" to walk and be made whole for for either dealing or possession that the state they live in has now made legal, and for which they are making INSANE amounts of tax dollars on a product they wrongfully criminalized until they figured out they could stuff their pockets with cash by selling it themselves.

As far as I know, that's only weed. Has California legalized Meth yet?

You claim lie, and then you repeat what I just posted.


Criminals saw a crime to commit. Criminals perpetrated those crimes. Criminals were convicted.
You stated that you want the criminals to roam free. And also, to be paid, by the state, for all of the lost time that they could have been committing more crimes. And also to now go forth and commit more crimes.

I don't agree with that.



You're either lying by omission or you don't know how to read.

Care to try again?

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 7:30 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Government's job as stated in the Constitution: ... form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ...

That is the function of the federal government, as envisioned by the writers of the Constitution.



... form a more perfect union is the reason to have a federal government at all, instead of a collections of independent states.

... establish justice is one reason to have a Constitution, to establish uniform justice across the country, because justice that isn't uniform isn't justice.

... insure domestic tranquility which is for states to interact peaceably with each other without border wars, and to quell rebellion.

... provide for the common defense is straightforward, which means to repel invaders.

... promote the general welfare can be stated in other terms as promote the common good.

... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ... should be self-evident.

The Constitution is more than just about having a national defense.

If the writers of the Constitution didn't think that the focus of the government was the benefit to the people as a whole, they would never have included this aim of the Constitution or written up the Bill of Rights. They would have merely set up a framework for independent states to negotiate defending against invaders, and left it at that. 95% of the Constitution would never have been written in the first place. Obviously looking at the Constitution as a whole, the goals for the Constitution were larger and more encompassing than coordinating repelling invaders.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 8:03 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Calling it "Public Good" is an intentional misnomer with incorrect connotations attached to it.

It makes stupid people believe that the Federal Government's role is beyond the scope of what it really is.

YOU might not be stupid enough to be manipulated by it, but perhaps you are stupid enough not to understand that.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 8:30 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



general welfare

general - not anyone or anything or any group particularity, but overall
accustomed
broad
commonplace
familiar
generic
humdrum
natural
normal
ordinary
prevailing
public
regular
routine
universal
conventional
customary
everyday
extensive
habitual
inclusive
matter-of-course
popular
prevalent
run-of-the-mill
typical
uneventful
usual
wide
widespread
wonted



welfare - benefit, good, well being
benefit
health
interest
progress
well-being
abundance
advantage
contentment
ease
euphoria
felicity
good
happiness
luck
pogey
profit
satisfaction
success
east street
good fortune
thriving

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 9:13 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.

So one question is: what is the BEST way to "promote the general welfare"? Does it ... should it ... mean government stepping in to do for people what people should be able to do for themselves, while at the same time promoting a system of economic parasitism by monopolies and banks?

Or should it mean that government creates an environment where people are rewarded for production and service, and which steps in to create a robust infrastructure, and actively invests in its people and environment? (And takes care of those who can't take care of themselves.)

As you know, I'm not a libertarian or a "neo-liberal" (should be called "post-liberal) ideologue so that's not what I'm proposing.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 10:19 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



I think the equation needs to be broken 'corporate good = public good'.

ETA: that's the lie being used as a fig leaf a fair bit for what the government is doing, along with RUSSIA!!!CHINA!!!, RTP, and national security.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 2, 2021 11:20 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.



She gets it.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 3, 2021 12:18 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.

Intentions are like a compass. If they're truly good, then if one gets blown off course in implementing those good intentions - as demonstrated by poor results - one changes course to steer back in the right direction.

I believe one can judge intentions by results. And if the poor results aren't matching the stated good intentions over time, then the stated intentions were never the real intentions. They were just an PR stunt to cover up something else.

So "R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good." Pfffft! They're not as claimed.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 3, 2021 1:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

SIGNYM:
I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.

SIX: She gets it.

KIKI: I think the equation needs to be broken 'corporate good = public good'.

So does she.

Altho there is another dimension besides profit, and that is power. As business craves profit (and mind-fucking people) government craves authoritarianism (oh, and also mind-fucking people).

We may be a little fuzzy around the edges, but I think we're in substantial agreement here.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 3, 2021 9:33 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

SIGNYM:
I think the issue is that we recognize that so much harm has been done with (stated) "good intentions". R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good.

SIX: She gets it.

KIKI: I think the equation needs to be broken 'corporate good = public good'.

So does she.

Altho there is another dimension besides profit, and that is power. As business craves profit (and mind-fucking people) government craves authoritarianism (oh, and also mind-fucking people).

We may be a little fuzzy around the edges, but I think we're in substantial agreement here.



After Kiki's post was wrapped up with the following, I do believe we are.

Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
So "R2P. Human rights. BLM. Public good." Pfffft! They're not as claimed.



Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Calling it "Public Good" is an intentional misnomer with incorrect connotations attached to it.

It makes stupid people believe that the Federal Government's role is beyond the scope of what it really is.



Seems like we finally got around to a consensus on an issue.

Yay!



--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 3, 2021 4:48 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


General Welfare of 1776 was not the Libtard's WELFARE as used in slang today.

Health, sure. But also be sure to include the economy - without which, the nation would perish. Government excessive confiscation of the economic engine does not support the General Welfare.


Free handouts for every able-bodied slug to sit on the couch all week? no.
Paying Illegal Alien Infected Invaders as soon as they cross the Border, or get caught? no.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 3, 2021 4:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF, I misunderstood your post. what threw me off was this ...
Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN
Leave the guilty drug dealers in.


Since both dealing AND possession are a crime, I thought you were making that distinction and treating them separately. My bad.

I can see your confusion. Why do you differentiate between dealers and possession? Of all the drug addicts I've known, not one who was in possession was not distributing, although the addicts describe it differently. They might call it sharing, or some other nonsense. But they always, every time, were distributing the weed to somebody else, whether that person wanted it or not. That it the point of pot - getting little girls to get high, so they can have sex.
Are you able to point out any law which specifies how much profit is required to be made, in which currency or barter value, before distribution is or is not legally called distribution? Most addicts think there is one, but I've never seen one, in any state.

Also, weed is still illegal Federally.
Quote:


Quote:

Remove all Innocent people from incarceration.
This should be a no-brainer. But since there are very few proven innocent people currently in jail, is this really one of the big problems facing America? How would this Make America Great Again?

Methinks that6 the various different multitudes of Innocence Projects scattering the nation would disagree with your characterization of not a big enough problem. They have LISTS of folk who are proven innocent.
Liberty is a Right recognized in the Declaration, and in the Constitution.
There is no excuse for it being abridged in this way.
In some nations, the Police are the goons, working for the dictators.
In some cities in America, cops are also the bad people, the criminals wearing a badge. Examples might be NYC, LAPD, numerous other sh!thole cities.
To help rectify the knwoledge that innocent people are incarcerated, every effort should be made to free tham when the miscarriage of Justice is known.
Quote:



Quote:

Balance the budget. Spend less than we confiscate in revenue. Then pay down the debt.
OK, maybe we should just start with a show of hands: How many people want to balance the budget?
And, since it is unlikely to happen all at once, how fast should this happen?
I suppose we can wrangle aferwards about how this should be done.
FWIW, in general I'm for balancing the the budget.

Balance the Budget. Since this is the start of a new Fiscal Year, a new Fiscal Budget, today is a good day to start.
Quote:



Quote:

Build the wall to end Illegal Alien Invasion, child, drug, and sex trafficking.

Maybe we don't need a wall everywhere, but we should definitley control our border.

OK, control the Border starting right now. Building the wall will make it easier, and cheaper, and more effective.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 3, 2021 5:43 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


lol

Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.

You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.

My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 3, 2021 10:08 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Altho there is another dimension besides profit, and that is power. As business craves profit (and mind-fucking people) government craves authoritarianism (oh, and also mind-fucking people).

I believe there's a legitimate role written into the Constitution for a legitimate government.

But what's advertised as legitimate "good intentions" by the government - and many administrations both D and R along the way - aren't.

Some of them fail at first blush - R2P for example. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the US is responsible for the well being of people in any other country but this one. In fact the founders envisioned an isolationist country, uninvolved in international pacts that could lead to endless wars. They'd seen hundreds of years of Europe having been there, and done that (Hundred Years War, anyone?). R2P is an unConstitutional fantasy.

Another that fails right off the bat is 'Human Rights'. It's a feel-good sound-bite fantasy, an amorphous blob of camouflage the government and the Deep State hide behind. Our rights are spelled out in the Constitution, and the US government is enshrined with protecting them. 'Human Rights' has no meaning in Constitutional America, let alone around the globe. But we make war all everywhere foreign in the name of 'Human Rights', while gutting our Constitutional Rights at home with the Surveillance State.

BLM is a front for - in the very kindest interpretation - a poorly thought out response to over-policing. But its mayhem and destruction betray the real motivation behind it. As I've mentioned, I do believe one can judge intentions by results.

Public good - there really is such a thing as the public good, found in other countries, where governments really do govern at times with the overall, long term benefit of their people in mind. In the US, though - and judging intentions by results - we see 80 years of not enough good-paying, productive jobs; the decline of vital, national-interest productive capacity; the marginalization of self-organization (unions and farm cooperatives are a form of self-organization), the common grounds of the environment being despoiled, and so on. Basically, we see a country being imploded to benefit corporations.


Anyway, while I don't see the government performing its legitimate functions, I do think they exist, as stated in the Constitution.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 3, 2021 10:12 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Bottom line is that, specifically in a society where it is necessary to flourish, Individuals themselves are generally, more often than not, "good", and even have the capacity to rise above and be great.

It's groups, movements and governments that are terrible, no matter how good the intentions behind them were when they originated. They are far too easily co-opted and ultimately controlled by the worst individuals among us. The power hungry. The greedy. The sociopaths.

This happens every time.

Every single time.



You will not, in the history of mankind, find an example that successfully argues against this truth.

If it hasn't happened yet, you only haven't noticed it because it's somehow benefiting you enough to not notice it. That, or the eventuality of this truth still has yet to play out.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 4, 2021 3:23 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Quote:

This happens every time.

Every single time.



You will not, in the history of mankind, find an example that successfully argues against this truth.

For sure there are no perfect societies. There are also no completely negative ones either for the simple reason that everyone would have perished.

I'm sure you can think of at least one society around the globe that you find worse than the US. So there's no 100% perfect society, and no 100% irredeemable society, either. But there's better and worse.

What society is better? How did that happen? What society is worse? How did that happen?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 4, 2021 5:43 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


When talking about America now, we just haven't seen the eventuality play out yet.

We're living on borrowed time at 245 years, and there are many signs that it's starting to crumble around us.

And after we're gone, nearly every other developed nation is going to fall like dominoes. Certainly all of the "free" ones.

That tree of liberty hasn't been watered in a very long time, and I doubt very much that any of us are going to see it happen in our lifetimes.

But just as everything is eventual, everything is cyclical as well. After our fall, and the fall of Democracy worldwide, there will be another very dark period in human history. But from the ashes of Democracy freedom eventually will rise once again.


--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 4, 2021 7:37 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol

Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.

You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.

My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.

The really cartoonish view of potheads is recognizing that they all get really, really defensive and offended in their denial, whenever reasonable folk point out any facts regarding their abused substance of choice.
Oh, wait......

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 4, 2021 9:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol
Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.
You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.
My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.

JSF: The really cartoonish view of potheads is recognizing that they all get really, really defensive and offended in their denial, whenever reasonable folk point out any facts regarding their abused substance of choice.
Oh, wait......



JSF, how do you feel about coffee-drinkers getting defensive about their coffee habits? Or tobacco smokers getting defensive about smoking? Or soda-guzzlers getting defensive about sugar? Same category as pot smokers, or different?

Yanno, people have been drinking coffee and tea, smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, chewing coca leaves, eating magic mushrooms, chewing betel, smoking hash and opium, starving or steaming themselves into hallucinations, drinking yohimbe, ingesting mescaline, chewing salvia divinorum, and in general messing with their brain chemistry for.... millenia.

Where do you draw the line between the commonplace (such as coffee) and the problematic (such as oxycodone), and why?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 4, 2021 9:25 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol

Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.

You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.

My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.

The really cartoonish view of potheads is recognizing that they all get really, really defensive and offended in their denial, whenever reasonable folk point out any facts regarding their abused substance of choice.
Oh, wait......




I haven't smoked weed in 7 years.

Of the vices I'd indulged in, nothing was easier than giving up weed.

Coffee is harder to stop than weed is.


You have a serious misconception of the plant.


And I'm not joking about the family thing either. They laugh at your attitude toward it behind your back while they're outside lighting up at the Christmas party.




--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 4, 2021 9:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

KIKI: I believe there's a legitimate role written into the Constitution for a legitimate government.
But what's advertised as legitimate "good intentions" by the government - and many administrations both D and R along the way - aren't.
Some of them fail at first blush - R2P for example. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the US is responsible for the well being of people in any other country but this one. In fact the founders envisioned an isolationist country, uninvolved in international pacts that could lead to endless wars. They'd seen hundreds of years of Europe having been there, and done that (Hundred Years War, anyone?). R2P is an unConstitutional fantasy.
Another that fails right off the bat is 'Human Rights'. It's a feel-good sound-bite fantasy, an amorphous blob of camouflage the government and the Deep State hide behind. Our rights are spelled out in the Constitution, and the US government is enshrined with protecting them. 'Human Rights' has no meaning in Constitutional America, let alone around the globe. But we make war all everywhere foreign in the name of 'Human Rights', while gutting our Constitutional Rights at home with the Surveillance State.
BLM is a front for - in the very kindest interpretation - a poorly thought out response to over-policing. But its mayhem and destruction betray the real motivation behind it. As I've mentioned, I do believe one can judge intentions by results.
Public good - there really is such a thing as the public good, found in other countries, where governments really do govern at times with the overall, long term benefit of their people in mind.
In the US, though - and judging intentions by results - we see 80 years of not enough good-paying, productive jobs; the decline of vital, national-interest productive capacity; the marginalization of self-organization (unions and farm cooperatives are a form of self-organization), the common grounds of the environment being despoiled, and so on. Basically, we see a country being imploded to benefit corporations.

Anyway, while I don't see the government performing its legitimate functions, I do think they exist, as stated in the Constitution.


Can you name some examples of what governments do, with long-term societal benefit?

One of the things I find pernicious is the "FDR" paradigm of societal benefit. FDR wasn't trying to save people, he was trying to save capitalism from its own excesses by blunting, or ameliorating, capitalism's worst effects. Instead of "helping" "poor people" we should understand WHY people are poor in the first place, and fix the problems that made them poor. I'm going to repeat my tagline and signature in context:

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them
...and...
"Pity would be no more if we did not MAKE men poor"


Quote:

6IXSTRINGJACK
Bottom line is that, specifically in a society where it is necessary to flourish, Individuals themselves are generally, more often than not, "good", and even have the capacity to rise above and be great.
It's groups, movements and governments that are terrible, no matter how good the intentions behind them were when they originated. They are far too easily co-opted and ultimately controlled by the worst individuals among us. The power hungry. The greedy. The sociopaths.
This happens every time.
Every single time.You will not, in the history of mankind, find an example that successfully argues against this truth.
If it hasn't happened yet, you only haven't noticed it because it's somehow benefiting you enough to not notice it. That, or the eventuality of this truth still has yet to play out.


Can you explain "in a society where it is necessary to flourish"? There are a LOT of societies where it's necessary to work like a dog to stay alive, but these societies are usually the product of greed, corruption, and extreme division of wealth and power. I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.
Can you give me some examples of societies where it is "necessary" to flourish?

Also, there were some governments that actually relinquished power peacefully. The Soviet Union, for example. Britain also gave up parts of its empire without revolution. So I wouldn't say that power "always" becomes so entrenched that it doesn't dissolve itself. Historically, societies and movements have.
But I agree with you that power generally behaves "gravitationally": the more you have, the more you can get.


Quote:

KIKI: For sure there are no perfect societies. There are also no completely negative ones either for the simple reason that everyone would have perished.
I'm sure you can think of at least one society around the globe that you find worse than the US. So there's no 100% perfect society, and no 100% irredeemable society, either. But there's better and worse.

How do you define "better"?


Quote:

6IXSTRINGJACK :When talking about America now, we just haven't seen the eventuality play out yet.
We're living on borrowed time at 245 years, and there are many signs that it's starting to crumble around us.
And after we're gone, nearly every other developed nation is going to fall like dominoes. Certainly all of the "free" ones.
That tree of liberty hasn't been watered in a very long time, and I doubt very much that any of us are going to see it happen in our lifetimes.
But just as everything is eventual, everything is cyclical as well. After our fall, and the fall of Democracy worldwide, there will be another very dark period in human history. But from the ashes of Democracy freedom eventually will rise once again.

Do you define "freedom" as democracy? Because there are a lot of societies- even ours- that are technically democracies ... or at least, they have some form of (multiparty, secret ballot) voting for public office ... but I wouldn't call them (or us) "free".



-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 4, 2021 9:48 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

6IXSTRINGJACK:
I haven't smoked weed in 7 years.
Of the vices I'd indulged in, nothing was easier than giving up weed.
Coffee is harder to stop than weed is.
You have a serious misconception of the plant.

And I'm not joking about the family thing either. They laugh at your attitude toward it behind your back while they're outside lighting up at the Christmas party.


Not against pot per se, but from experience I gotta say, it was not for me. Also, the strains now are so strong, they really pack a wallop. It's like coca- chew some leaves and you get a bit of a buzz, like a couple cups of espresso. Concentrate it, add base (to make it volatile) and inhale it, and it takes some people to such a high they spend the rest of their lifetime trying to get back to that place.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 4, 2021 9:57 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

6IXSTRINGJACK:
I haven't smoked weed in 7 years.
Of the vices I'd indulged in, nothing was easier than giving up weed.
Coffee is harder to stop than weed is.
You have a serious misconception of the plant.

And I'm not joking about the family thing either. They laugh at your attitude toward it behind your back while they're outside lighting up at the Christmas party.


Not against pot per se, but from experience I gotta say, it was not for me.



Nothing wrong with knowing what you like and don't like. I love coffee, but I hate tea.

I love weed. I plan on smoking it again one day. But the effects from person to person can be quite different. I happen to be among those that become quite lazy when I indulge. I made up my mind that I don't have time for that right now. I'm around people that smoke it all the time, and it's no harder for me to not partake than it is when I'm around people who drink. Any one of those people would gladly get me high. Hell... my sales-man buddy has made it a personal mission of his to try to get me to try the new store-bought stuff and feels that I'm one of the most challenging marks he's ever had at this point. He's not used to taking no for an answer.

Quote:

Also, the strains now are so strong, they really pack a wallop. It's like coca- chew some leaves and you get a bit of a buzz, like a couple cups of espresso. Concentrate it, add base (to make it volatile) and inhale it, and it takes some people to such a high they spend the rest of their lifetime trying to get back to that place.


Yeah... I think I'd probably just be using the black market weaker stuff. That's still everywhere, despite the legality of it now. The taxes are far too high to ever eliminate the black market.

The last 10 or so years I smoked, I only used a hitter bat, which is a very small amount. And I'd only do it after I got home from work or on weekends.

My days of ripping 6 foot glass bongs are very, very far behind me.



--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:48 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Can you name some examples of what governments do, with long-term societal benefit ...

Here in the US, the EPA is a good example. I'd also count our national parks and public schools. In Europe, many governments have spent public money to provide non-global-warming power and are significantly cutting their emissions. Some governments like Cuba provide healthcare directly, aren't either just sending public money on to 'insurance' companies or to private 'health' corporations. Even a sheriff can be a public good. In a very near past there were small villages not just in the US but in Europe as well, with no law enforcement. The story that I heard was from someone who lived in just that kind of village. There was a really big strong guy who enjoyed pushing people around. Everyone was pretty poor, so an injury would mean at the very last being unproductive, and could put an entire family in economic jeopardy. And if you had to call a doctor, it would wipe you out. And then of course you could die. So everybody just stayed out of arm's reach as much as possible. Anyway, the meanest, richest, or quickest-draw could terrorize the town. And a sheriff was a good thing, provided the sheriff didn't in turn become just another bully. So those are a few examples of governments(public resources) providing a public good.
Quote:

Also, there were some governments that actually relinquished power peacefully. The Soviet Union, for example. Britain also gave up parts of its empire without revolution. So I wouldn't say that power "always" becomes so entrenched that it doesn't dissolve itself. Historically, societies and movements have.
Also, some very successful societies that lasted for hundreds of years, that seemed to operate unlike any modern-day ones fell to natural events like at Harappa; with another a powerful volcano wiped out an entire Minoan island and civilization.
Quote:

How do you define "better"?
Your millage may vary! I'm sure my definition of better would be different from Jack's. It was a thought experiment, to help open up the possibility of a spectrum of societies in between total disaster and heaven-on-earth. Many people have a hard time imagining anything could possibly be better than the US. But they can imagine worse! So it was a nudge to consider that indeed, just as some places can be worse - for very specific reasons, some places could also be better - also for very specific reasons. And maybe the US could be better, too, by implementing specific changes.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 10:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

KIKI: Your mileage may vary
So, I guess this would be the time to discuss WHAT we expect of government ... and society!

What about you, SIX? I left a couple of questions for you bc I didn't understand your post, and would really like to know what you think.

You, too, JSF. I left a question for you about drug use, since humans have been "self medicating" for millenia already I would like to know which drugs your find problematic, and -especially- why. (My guess is that drugs cause people to become irresponsible and unproductive, but I could be wrong.)

Anybody else? JO753? I know you have a lot of ideas.

SECOND? You have a lot of criticisms which [might] mean that you also have a picture of your ideal government policies (or, at least, your "better" government policies).

THGR? You post a LOT about Russia and Trump. What about our country? (Unless, of couse, you're Russian!)

JAYNZE: You do keep an eye on things from a different, and appreciated, perspective. Any ideas what a "great" America would look like?

When we say "Make America Great Again" I suppose we should probably figure out what it is that we mean by "great".




-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:23 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is

Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.

Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.

Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.

Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)

Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.

Make America less corrupt, again.

******

What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.

For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.

So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.

Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 11:47 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, I guess this would be the time to discuss WHAT we expect of government ... and society!

What about you, SIX? I left a couple of questions for you bc I didn't understand your post, and would really like to know what you think.



Oh honey... I'm blackedpilled at this point. There are too many holes in this sinking ship to ever fix it now.

But sure... I'll answer your questions.

Quote:

Can you explain "in a society where it is necessary to flourish"? There are a LOT of societies where it's necessary to work like a dog to stay alive, but these societies are usually the product of greed, corruption, and extreme division of wealth and power. I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.
Can you give me some examples of societies where it is "necessary" to flourish?



I didn't mean in one PARTICULAR society where being more or less good is necessary to flourish. I meant in ANY society, unless of course you are successfully part of the greed, corruption and on the right side of the extreme division of wealth and power, it benefits you to be more or less "good" if you have any desire to flourish. Being good doesn't mean that you will flourish in a society, but unless you're very good at being bad, it's basically a prerequisite and it behooves you to have friendlies about.

Quote:

Also, there were some governments that actually relinquished power peacefully. The Soviet Union, for example. Britain also gave up parts of its empire without revolution. So I wouldn't say that power "always" becomes so entrenched that it doesn't dissolve itself. Historically, societies and movements have.


I doubt very much that any of that was relinquished freely and of their own will. That only happens under duress. Let's just say that if America wasn't around at the time, neither of those examples would have happened.

Quote:

But I agree with you that power generally behaves "gravitationally": the more you have, the more you can get.


Don't forget the gravitational pull of this power over the worst individuals of a society. The greedy. The ambitious. The sociopaths.



Quote:

When we say "Make America Great Again" I suppose we should probably figure out what it is that we mean by "great".


At this point, I'd settle for "Not Terrible and No Longer On A Downward Trajectory", but we can't even do that.

There is no hope for this version of America. And after we fall, the rest of the "free" world falls with us.

Maybe we get it right next time. History would predict otherwise.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 12:01 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SECOND? You have a lot of criticisms which [might] mean that you also have a picture of your ideal government policies (or, at least, your "better" government policies).

Signym, you might have noticed that I don't think in generalizations and abstractions. Here is a very specific example, but there are a million things only the Federal government can do, but does not because too many Americans and Congressmen think in abstractions blinding themselves to the million things an engineer sees:

Ike Dike. It would protect property around Galveston Bay. It is an enlargement of the Galveston Seawall, which could only been built with Federal money, BUT CONGRESS WAITED UNTIL AFTER 7.000 DROWNED IN THE 1900 HURRICANE. America tends to wait too long to react to all problems, large or small or specific to one area. But if it doesn't react immediately, America forgets until a new disaster reminds Congress/America for a week or two what it had forgotten.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ike+dike+congress

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 12:15 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Signym, you might have noticed that I don't think in generalizations and abstractions.



It says while cheer leading a spending bill in which it could not actually tell you more than 2% of what is in said spending bill.


The problem with Democracy is that two idiots can out vote a genius.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 12:31 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Signym, you might have noticed that I don't think in generalizations and abstractions.



It says while cheer leading a spending bill in which it could not actually tell you more than 2% of what is in said spending bill.


The problem with Democracy is that two idiots can out vote a genius.

All the geniuses I have known would use Democracy with great intelligence to achieve very selfish goals benefiting only themselves. Business owners are not well-rounded geniuses but the successful will run the business to benefit themselves, not the customers and certainly not the employees. The genius of successful business owners is to hide the owners' selfishness from customers and employees using ingenious tricks and pricing techniques and a large amount of salesmanship with a dash of fraud for seasoning. It takes a certain kind of genius.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 12:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

SIGNYM:

SECOND? You have a lot of criticisms which [might] mean that you also have a picture of your ideal government policies (or, at least, your "better" government policies).

SECOND: Signym, you might have noticed that I don't think in generalizations and abstractions. Here is a very specific example, but there are a million things only the Federal government can do, but does not because too many Americans and Congressmen think in abstractions blinding themselves to the million things an engineer sees:

Ike Dike. It would protect property around Galveston Bay. It is an enlargement of the Galveston Seawall, which could only been built with Federal money, BUT CONGRESS WAITED UNTIL AFTER 7.000 DROWNED IN THE 1900 HURRICANE. America tends to wait too long to react to all problems, large or small or specific to one area. But if it doesn't react immediately, America forgets until a new disaster reminds Congress/America for a week or two what it had forgotten.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ike+dike+congress

Actually, you Do think in abstractions and generalities, you just don't recognize that you do.
Here are some generalizations embedded in this specific example:

Property loss is a bad thing, protecting property is a good thing.

Loss of life is a bad thing, saving lives is a good thing.

Protecting property and saving lives is the business of government (not business, religions, other NGOs or individuals) and (especially) Federal government. (I'm curious as to why you think the Federal government should construct a dike protecting Galveston Bay, since it's an intrastate problem and not a Federal one. Is it the size of the project that places it in Federal hands, or some jurisdictional issue?)

Solving "problems" (however defined) is a good thing, proactively solving them is better.

Americans (and I suppose people in general) are bad at recognizing and responding to potential pitfalls.

Congress only responds to immediate political pressure on hot-button issues, and doesn't take a responsible managerial (or, if you will, engineering) approach. That is therefore a flaw in democracy.

See?

I think there really are abstractions driving your thoughts, which run in both directions (from assumptions to conclusions). Do you agree, in general, with my description of your values and assumptions so far?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 1:02 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

SIGNYM:
So, I guess this would be the time to discuss WHAT we expect of government ... and society!
What about you, SIX? I left a couple of questions for you bc I didn't understand your post, and would really like to know what you think.

SIX: Oh honey... I'm blackedpilled at this point. There are too many holes in this sinking ship to ever fix it now.

Well, this is just for discussion. We are, at best, ants in the steerage compartment of the Titanic.

Quote:

SIX: But sure... I'll answer your questions.
THANKS!

Quote:

SIGNY: Can you explain "in a society where it is necessary to flourish"? There are a LOT of societies where it's necessary to work like a dog to stay alive, but these societies are usually the product of greed, corruption, and extreme division of wealth and power. I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.
Can you give me some examples of societies where it is "necessary" to flourish?

SIX: I didn't mean in one PARTICULAR society where being more or less good is necessary to flourish. I meant in ANY society, unless of course you are successfully part of the greed, corruption and on the right side of the extreme division of wealth and power, it benefits you to be more or less "good" if you have any desire to flourish. Being good doesn't mean that you will flourish in a society, but unless you're very good at being bad, it's basically a prerequisite and it behooves you to have friendlies about.

So, if I were to restate this as: setting up an environment [society, ethics] where you must be good to flourish... is that about right?

Quote:

SIGNY: Also, there were some governments that actually relinquished power peacefully. The Soviet Union, for example. Britain also gave up parts of its empire without revolution. So I wouldn't say that power "always" becomes so entrenched that it doesn't dissolve itself. Historically, societies and movements have.

SIX: I doubt very much that any of that was relinquished freely and of their own will. That only happens under duress. Let's just say that if America wasn't around at the time, neither of those examples would have happened.

Well, Britain gave up Canada and Australia without a fight, USA not involved. But I understand about the USSR.

Quote:

SIGNY: But I agree with you that power generally behaves "gravitationally": the more you have, the more you can get.

SIX: Don't forget the gravitational pull of this power over the worst individuals of a society. The greedy. The ambitious. The sociopaths.

I think we're saying the same thing, but I see it more mechanistically: Power doesn't automatically concentrate, like matter accumulates automatically thnaks to gravity. It is purposefully concentrated by the greedy, ambitious, and sociopathic. But once they HAVE some power in their hands, they use that power to gather more power. Exponential growth is possible.

Altho at some point it becomes self-feeding, because once the greedy, ambitious, and sociopathic start warping the rules that govern society, it just gets bigger and bigger as more people are swept up into it and depend on it.

Quote:

SIGNY: When we say "Make America Great Again" I suppose we should probably figure out what it is that we mean by "great".

SIX: At this point, I'd settle for "Not Terrible and No Longer On A Downward Trajectory", but we can't even do that.

HA! TOO TRUE!

Quote:

SIX: There is no hope for this version of America. And after we fall, the rest of the "free" world falls with us.
Maybe we get it right next time. History would predict otherwise.

"Free" as in western civilization?

Just curious.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 2:48 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

SIGNYM:
So, I guess this would be the time to discuss WHAT we expect of government ... and society!
What about you, SIX? I left a couple of questions for you bc I didn't understand your post, and would really like to know what you think.

SIX: Oh honey... I'm blackedpilled at this point. There are too many holes in this sinking ship to ever fix it now.

Well, this is just for discussion. We are, at best, ants in the steerage compartment of the Titanic.



Yup. The best thing about nobody giving a shit about your opinion is that nobody gives a shit about your opinion.



Quote:

SIX: But sure... I'll answer your questions.
THANKS!

Quote:

Quote:

SIGNY: Can you explain "in a society where it is necessary to flourish"? There are a LOT of societies where it's necessary to work like a dog to stay alive, but these societies are usually the product of greed, corruption, and extreme division of wealth and power. I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean.
Can you give me some examples of societies where it is "necessary" to flourish?

SIX: I didn't mean in one PARTICULAR society where being more or less good is necessary to flourish. I meant in ANY society, unless of course you are successfully part of the greed, corruption and on the right side of the extreme division of wealth and power, it benefits you to be more or less "good" if you have any desire to flourish. Being good doesn't mean that you will flourish in a society, but unless you're very good at being bad, it's basically a prerequisite and it behooves you to have friendlies about.

So, if I were to restate this as: setting up an environment [society, ethics] where you must be good to flourish... is that about right?



That's probably too far simplified.

I mean, sure... Great. Let's reward people who work for it and make it a meritocracy... But you know that's never going to happen.

I think one of the biggest problems we have is that our "societies" have become too large. With smaller, more intimate "societies", there aren't any need for hard-coded rules and alphabet agencies enforcing them. If you're a piece of shit to everyone and you haven't already consolidated a huge chunk of power, you're outcast from the society and the problem takes care of itself.

Things are really just too big now.

Quote:

Quote:

SIGNY: Also, there were some governments that actually relinquished power peacefully. The Soviet Union, for example. Britain also gave up parts of its empire without revolution. So I wouldn't say that power "always" becomes so entrenched that it doesn't dissolve itself. Historically, societies and movements have.

SIX: I doubt very much that any of that was relinquished freely and of their own will. That only happens under duress. Let's just say that if America wasn't around at the time, neither of those examples would have happened.

Well, Britain gave up Canada and Australia without a fight, USA not involved. But I understand about the USSR.



I think you're severely discounting the mere existence and power of America at the time those things happened. If there weren't larger powers around that would frown upon those decisions by fellow "free" countries AND they felt that they really needed those empires, the only way that they would have ever become free is with a fight.

Quote:

Quote:

SIGNY: But I agree with you that power generally behaves "gravitationally": the more you have, the more you can get.

SIX: Don't forget the gravitational pull of this power over the worst individuals of a society. The greedy. The ambitious. The sociopaths.

I think we're saying the same thing, but I see it more mechanistically: Power doesn't automatically concentrate, like matter accumulates automatically thnaks to gravity. It is purposefully concentrated by the greedy, ambitious, and sociopathic. But once they HAVE some power in their hands, they use that power to gather more power. Exponential growth is possible.

Altho at some point it becomes self-feeding, because once the greedy, ambitious, and sociopathic start warping the rules that govern society, it just gets bigger and bigger as more people are swept up into it and depend on it.



I think a lot of happy accidents occur along the way. With humans being humans, nobody ever created this grand plan that brought us to where we are today. It only works because it's NOT rigid, and because the people on the tippy top making the decisions are versatile and quickly adaptable to new and unexpected situations that pop up every day.

It sounds pretty mind-boggling to consider that in a game of chess after both players have made 4 moves there are already 288 Billion + possible positions, but that's not really true since a great deal of those moves would never be made by somebody who knows how to play the game.

But now take a world where you've got 7.5 Billion pawns instead of only 16 pawns and 32 total pieces. Designing a great plan that was absolutely rigid would fail before it even began.

Quote:

Quote:

SIGNY: When we say "Make America Great Again" I suppose we should probably figure out what it is that we mean by "great".

SIX: At this point, I'd settle for "Not Terrible and No Longer On A Downward Trajectory", but we can't even do that.

HA! TOO TRUE!

Quote:

SIX: There is no hope for this version of America. And after we fall, the rest of the "free" world falls with us.
Maybe we get it right next time. History would predict otherwise.

"Free" as in western civilization?

Just curious.




Yes. As in any truly free place today, and those who like to pretend that their people are free.

China, Russia, the Middle East, etc...

The only reason that they even behave as well as they do right now (which leaves a lot to be desired already) is because of nukes and because of the size and might of the American army.

If America were to crumble it would be what happened to Afghanistan EVERYWHERE overnight.

Even worse... If America were to throw out the Constitution and become the enemy of freedom itself, it would have the most powerful war machine mankind has ever made at it's disposal to eliminate freedom.

And let's face it... that has arguably already happened and we're just pretending like it hasn't because most of us have it just good enough where the cake and circus surrounding us is welcome distractions we all consume because even thinking about doing the alternative is not pleasant.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 3:55 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is

Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.

Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.

Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.

Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)

Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.

Make America less corrupt, again.

******

What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.

For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.

So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.

Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Just to specifically address 'agency' and 'purpose' for the moment (and btw this is a synthesis of the ideas and observations others). As animals, we'd love to lie around all day being fed high-reward foods and indulging in endless sex (for those with a high sex-drive), and perversions (for those who find them rewarding) and drugs - think of a non-stop Roman orgy. In other words, we'd like 100% reward for 0% effort.

But when we treat animals that way in a zoo - protect them from danger, and feed them with no effort required - they become for want of a better word neurotic. They groom to the point of taking their skin off, or masturbate ceaselessly, or eat or throw poop or both, or act inordinately dominantly and aggressively, or lie around listlessly ... and so on.

When animals are allowed to roam to graze, or their food is challenging to find (partly hidden), or they're given opportunities to play, neurotic behaviors go away.

So reward with lack of challenge, while desired, isn't healthy for animals. As animals, we need challenges in our lives to exercise our minds, sharpen our motivations, and give us a sense or reward. And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle with no end in sight. Another way to be depressed is to be in a state of enforced helplessness with nothing to do.

As for 'purpose', if you talk with 'primitive' (non-monetary) peoples, their sense of reward is their children. Once you get past a certain age, you know that you'll die. So getting up and doing the same things over and over again till you die becomes unrewarding. People want to survive, but it's not a source of consistent reward. When they look for reward, they look to a purpose of healthy children and grandchildren.


So agency and purpose - both of which are tied to challenges, effort, success, and the future - are important to people for their mental well-being.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SIX: To be perfectly cynical ... IF we toss out the Constitution?

I think we've tossed out more than half already.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:07 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Yeah...

And that being said, our Public School System is designed for everything opposite of what you just said, Kiki.

The top say 10% will end up finding a rewarding future, while the rest of them will end up mindless cogs in the machine without any real importance.

Most of our so called "essential workers" during the lockdowns were only essential because there are far too many people on the planet and they were doing things that wouldn't ever be done by anybody in a society if we had a reasonable amount of people living here.




On a micro-scale, I was and in some ways still am the fucked up zoo animal that you reference above. I found myself with near zero responsibility, zero obligations and zero bills of any real significance. What did I do with that time and freedom? I drank myself into oblivion and let everything I'd done up until that point fall into serious disrepair. I actively used that time to destroy my body and my mind (and my soul?) and any relationships I'd ever made.

I was comfortable, but without any sense of purpose.

I'm lucky I survived that. There are no words for how lucky I am to have some people in my life who didn't abandon me completely and were still there when I finally got my head back on straight. And while some days it's very easy to get better, there are still periods of time where I struggle with it. On my worst days, a LOT.

It's why I don't go around telling people to live like me. It's not for the feint of heart, and it's probably not something I would recommend to anybody who hasn't spent at least 3.5 decades here and become wise enough and self-determined enough to live a life without many restraints (especially if they weren't born with a silver-spoon in their ass and a ton of unearned contacts and opportunities that will just drop something worthwhile to do with their time in their lap).

Saving money is good. Neurotically saving money to get yourself into a position where you don't ever need to do anything again many decades before most people retire is probably not.

Unless you can find and make your own purpose.

And no school is going to teach you that.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:10 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SIX: To be perfectly cynical ... IF we toss out the Constitution?

I think we've tossed out more than half already.



Yeah... well... I can only swallow so many black pills in a single day.

At least we still pretend like we're a free people.

All you have to do is take a look at the Australian News right now and see what happens when a supposedly free people face the harsh reality that they aren't free at all.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:17 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



To address human needs again (and again, this is a compilation of many ideas and observations of others) - as adults people don't forward species survival as isolated creatures, like tigers or bears. And the reason is this: To get rid of a misunderstanding that it's all about how males must be the 'fittest' - as the saying goes, sterility beats virility. And to get rid of a misunderstanding that it's all about how many children a male can breed - if those children don't survive to adulthood, there goes all his genetics. To survive as a species, enough children have to survive to be old enough to have their own children, and for those children to have children, and so on.

And females burdened with children are likely not going to survive on their own and neither will their children, especially if they're in competition with males for resources. Human survival is structured in such a way that male and female adults and children need to live together in groups at least somewhat cooperatively.

And when they do that, there needs to be standards of behavior in place that will routinely lead to enough generations of children surviving over the indefinite future to carry the species forward.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is

Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.

Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.

Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.

Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)

Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.

Make America less corrupt, again.

******

What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.

For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.

So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.

Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Just to specifically address 'agency' and 'purpose' for the moment (and btw this is a synthesis of the ideas and observations others). As animals, we'd love to lie around all day being fed high-reward foods and indulging in endless sex (for those with a high sex-drive), and perversions (for those who find them rewarding) and drugs - think of a non-stop Roman orgy. In other words, we'd like 100% reward for 0% effort.

But when we treat animals that way in a zoo - protect them from danger, and feed them with no effort required - they become for want of a better word neurotic. They groom to the point of taking their skin off, or masturbate ceaselessly, or eat or throw poop or both, or act inordinately dominantly and aggressively, or lie around listlessly ... and so on.

When animals are allowed to roam to graze, or their food is challenging to find (partly hidden), or they're given opportunities to play, neurotic behaviors go away.

So reward with lack of challenge, while desired, isn't healthy for animals. As animals, we need challenges in our lives to exercise our minds, sharpen our motivations, and give us a sense or reward. And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle with no end in sight. Another way to be depressed is to be in a state of enforced helplessness with nothing to do.

As for 'purpose', if you talk with 'primitive' (non-monetary) peoples, their sense of reward is their children. Once you get past a certain age, you know that you'll die. So getting up and doing the same things over and over again till you die becomes unrewarding. People want to survive, but it's not a source of consistent reward. When they look for reward, they look to a purpose of healthy children and grandchildren.


So agency and purpose - both of which are tied to challenges, effort, success, and the future - are important to people for their mental well-being.

YES, THANK YOU for going in depth into what I only roughly outlined. It's what I feel about humans and animals in general: We are geared towards effort for reward; dopamine is the intrinsic reward for learning, and learning is the adaptive response to difficulty.
Quote:


And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle with no end in sight. Another way to be depressed is to be in a state of enforced helplessness with nothing to do.



A life without effort, learning and reward makes us crazy.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:21 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

To address human needs again (and again, this is a compilation of many ideas and observations of others) - as adults people don't forward species survival as isolated creatures, like tigers or bears. And the reason is this: To get rid of a misunderstanding that it's all about how males must be the 'fittest' - as the saying goes, sterility beats virility. And to get rid of a misunderstanding that it's all about how many children a male can breed - if those children don't survive to adulthood, there goes all his genetics. To survive as a species, enough children have to survive to be old enough to have their own children, and for those children to have children, and so on.

And females burdened with children are likely not going to survive on their own and neither will their children, especially if they're in competition with males for resources. Human survival is structured in such a way that male and female adults and children need to live together in groups at least somewhat cooperatively.

And when they do that, there needs to be standards of behavior in place that will routinely lead to enough children surviving over the indefinite future to carry the species forward.



Yeah.

But our government has all but removed the dependency of females and children on males for nearly anything, completely shattering the old family dynamic.

I made a reference to this in another thread to JSF, talking about the new wave of millennial and zoomer feminists you see spewing shit on TikTok and Instagram.

They are an evolutionary dead end.

--------------------------------------------------

Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:34 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is

Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.

Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.

Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.

Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)

Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.

Make America less corrupt, again.

******

What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.

For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.

So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.

Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook

Looks like Siggy's account has been hacked by Trump.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:36 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So let ME start out by saying, when I say "Make America Great Again" I'm not really aspiring to greatness. What I really mean to say is

Make America Sovereign and Resilient Again.

Put the American nation on the path to survival, not self destruction.

Make America economically independent again: Able to survive mostly on its own production, and to trade fairly for things that it can't produce, instead of depending on debt and the reserve currency status.

Make America able to survive in the long run (for the next 200 years at least)

Make America independent of foreign entanglements, again.

Make America less corrupt, again.

******

What this boils down to, mostly, is about our individual physical and long-term social welfare. I could say "the greatest good for the greatest number, including those living in the future", but - what do I mean by "good"? If I were religious, it might mean "make people worthy of heaven" or "make us worthy of being reincarnated into the whole" or "make us the ideal socialist beings", but my ideas of "good" are more earthbound.

For me, that means fulfilling what humans have sought since humans started evolving:
Food and water, safety, good health, acceptance, agency, purpose, long-term predictability.

So my goals don't revolve around "freedom" altho freedom (individual agency) is part of the equation.

Any of this ringing any bells with anyone, or is it all gobbledygook?

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


Just to specifically address 'agency' and 'purpose' for the moment (and btw this is a synthesis of the ideas and observations others). As animals, we'd love to lie around all day being fed high-reward foods and indulging in endless sex (for those with a high sex-drive), and perversions (for those who find them rewarding) and drugs - think of a non-stop Roman orgy. In other words, we'd like 100% reward for 0% effort.

But when we treat animals that way in a zoo - protect them from danger, and feed them with no effort required - they become for want of a better word neurotic. They groom to the point of taking their skin off, or masturbate ceaselessly, or eat or throw poop or both, or act inordinately dominantly and aggressively, or lie around listlessly ... and so on.

When animals are allowed to roam to graze, or their food is challenging to find (partly hidden), or they're given opportunities to play, neurotic behaviors go away.

So reward with lack of challenge, while desired, isn't healthy for animals. As animals, we need challenges in our lives to exercise our minds, sharpen our motivations, and give us a sense or reward. And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle with no end in sight. Another way to be depressed is to be in a state of enforced helplessness with nothing to do.

As for 'purpose', if you talk with 'primitive' (non-monetary) peoples, their sense of reward is their children. Once you get past a certain age, you know that you'll die. So getting up and doing the same things over and over again till you die becomes unrewarding. People want to survive, but it's not a source of consistent reward. When they look for reward, they look to a purpose of healthy children and grandchildren.


So agency and purpose - both of which are tied to challenges, effort, success, and the future - are important to people for their mental well-being.

YES, THANK YOU for going in depth into what I only roughly outlined. It's what I feel about humans and animals in general: We are geared towards effort for reward; dopamine is the intrinsic reward for learning, and learning is the adaptive response to difficulty.
Quote:


And if depression is a sense of helplessness, one way to be depressed is endless struggle with no end in sight. Another way to be depressed is to be in a state of enforced helplessness with nothing to do.



A life without effort, learning and success makes us crazy.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:51 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Anyway, I'm going to continue on for a bit, and reply at some point later because I want to keep my train of thought but I have things I need to do.

As above, people survive in groups.

I've read the argument that family groups are a natural association. These are people you know individually over the long term, and who know you over the long term.

But that if you want to really bring more people together, you make up stories and tell each other and future generations that the stories are real.

At the very least, in the most primitive example, tribes do that.

To back up a bit, there was a group that very diligently tried to find some association between physical means of survival and social structure in 'non-monetary' tribes and villages. Some were hunter-gatherers, some were agriculturalists, some were herders, and some were seafarers. And the researchers projected what kind of society they thought the means of survival would dictate. For example, in a tropical jungle resources are uniformly available over the year, but widely scattered. One would think that means that people would scatter in small family groups who roamed widely for resources. But that wasn't what they found. Some cultures did, others didn't. Primitive agriculturalists who are tied to the land are neither more stranger-averse nor less, nor more warlike nor less. My guess is that even very primitive technology breaks the relation between the environment and survival strategies. And as a result, societies aren't formed around environmental dictates, but around what pretty much what people tell themselves they are. We people are peaceable and happy ... or, we people warlike and aggressive ... and so on.

The other thing I've learned over the years is that children believe what you tell them over what they see with their own lying eyes. What you tell them becomes their reality. (How does a mystery box work ... if you show a monkey a wrapped box and all the steps they need to get to the reward, once you unwrap the box they'll quickly figure out how it works and ditch the unnecessary steps. Children will keep doing what you taught them, even when they can see that all but 1 step is bogus.)



So, the theory is that to build really really large societies, you need to tell all those people the same myths - so that people who are strangers to each other will come together and act as if they belong to the same tribe. And that means - armies, especially. So that someone from Macon Georgia will fight with someone from New York New York and Petoskey Michigan for 'Iraqi Freedom'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:53 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

6IXSTRINGJACK:
lol
Your 1930's cartoonish view of weed smokers is hilarious.
You're the dick at the family parties that everybody else hides the weed from.
My god, you'd end up having to cut off more than half your family if you ever knew the truth.

JSF: The really cartoonish view of potheads is recognizing that they all get really, really defensive and offended in their denial, whenever reasonable folk point out any facts regarding their abused substance of choice.
Oh, wait......



JSF, how do you feel about coffee-drinkers getting defensive about their coffee habits? Or tobacco smokers getting defensive about smoking? Or soda-guzzlers getting defensive about sugar? Same category as pot smokers, or different?

Yanno, people have been drinking coffee and tea, smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, chewing coca leaves, eating magic mushrooms, chewing betel, smoking hash and opium, starving or steaming themselves into hallucinations, drinking yohimbe, ingesting mescaline, chewing salvia divinorum, and in general messing with their brain chemistry for.... millenia.

Where do you draw the line between the commonplace (such as coffee) and the problematic (such as oxycodone), and why?

I have not seen coffee drinkers getting nearly as defensive as illegal drug abusers.
And yes, abuse of pot is currently defined as smoking more than one tenth of one small joint per day. At the time of that line being established, the pot was 1/30 as strong as today, and the measure was 3 joints per day. Anything more causes permanent damage to the Immune System.

I have seen coffee drinkers compete, wager, bet on who has the highest BP each day.
Coffee, sugar, chocolate, tobacco, are currently legal substances.


I recently have been consuming 2 aspirin per day, almost every day. It bothers me, but nobody else has been annoying me about it.

Consumption of unfrozen meats drenched in chemicals is currently legal, but for folk who want cancer, that6 is their choice.

Not long ago, absinthe was in some way legalized in the US, but there seems to be some vastly weakened version which is now available. I don't recall the permanent long term side effects of that - whether physical or mental.


If individuals are choosing to be criminals, knowingly perpetrating crimes, then that is different than the legal choices they could make. There is no legal limit on the amount of sugar, chocolate, or coffee one cna have possession of - but you can still overdose on too much caffiene.

Food makers pour poison like sucralose into foods currently, and this is still a legal activity.


Maybe I'm rambling too much right now. I am distracted. And have not had enough chocolate. Geez, just realized I had a Coke for lunch - maybe that is it.



ETA: perhaps my primary dividing point is the physical ailments resulting from drug abuse.
Coffee = HBP, is that right? If you die from it, you win the Darwin Award for your end of the genetic line.
Sucralose = diabetes, HBP, migraine headaches, and a myriad of other health failures. But some folk demand to consume it.
Isn't most of the classification of drugs by our government based upon the permanent physical injury thy can produce, even if the injury is in the brain?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:24 - 594 posts
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:16 - 237 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, October 31, 2024 13:46 - 7408 posts
No matter what happens...
Wed, October 30, 2024 23:43 - 21 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL