First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
A rant about governments in general
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/4/07
Would be great if people read my posts once in a while, I mean yea they are nothing but walls of text but usually I have something of at least minimal intelligence to say...lol


3kgt wrote:


The basic laws are necessary anywhere, and I truthfully have a hard time believing anyone could create an educated argument against them. (ie, dont kill, rape, steal or abuse).



Anyways, on this, it is rather easy to justify any of those things if one provides the right situations and conditions. And people have been known to bend truths in the past to justify their own actions.
1068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / unknown
Offline
Posted 10/4/07
Well...sometimes the government really makes some rules which may seem unfair... but most of the time the laws are there to remind us of what we are not supposed to do , like killing everyone because you hate them
154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Outside your wind...
Offline
Posted 10/5/07

excalion wrote:

Would be great if people read my posts once in a while, I mean yea they are nothing but walls of text but usually I have something of at least minimal intelligence to say...lol


3kgt wrote:


The basic laws are necessary anywhere, and I truthfully have a hard time believing anyone could create an educated argument against them. (ie, dont kill, rape, steal or abuse).



Anyways, on this, it is rather easy to justify any of those things if one provides the right situations and conditions. And people have been known to bend truths in the past to justify their own actions.


hehe. i did read yours. i know i repeated a lot of things you said, but i wanted to expand with my thoughts a little.

and, umm...not to threadjack, but i really am curious how you would justify someone raping someone, murdering someone in cold blood, stealing from a person (ie, not stealing bread from the store to feed your family), or just beating another up for no reason?
Posted 10/5/07
But do we really need someone to tell us that taking things that don`t belong to you , or that harming others, is wrong . Its a fundamental of society , and something that mostly everyone understands . We don`t have to have an organization telling us these simple self evident truths . and we are more than capable of reprimanding and punishing those that commit such acts as a community of man , rather than as a governing body .
1490 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/5/07
Humans need to band together to survive.
An organizational structure is necessary for such a group to function.
Whichever way you look at it, the problem is that the people at the top are corrupt. They should all be killed. Along with stupid people and the like. And most religions and similar useless entities should be beaten with sticks until they understand why they are wrong/die.

Your typical anarchist or nonconformist (look at us we wear yellow while you wear green our life has more meaning), however proud it may sound today, is the biggest loser and waste of breathing air on this planet.

Anyway, the real problem is that people live on LEVELS, into which the typical societal class does not directly factor in. In fact, it's annoying that so many people are very low on this spectrum.
I'll be surprised if anyone understands this "rant". It's a waste of time, but maybe I'll hear something interesting.
154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Outside your wind...
Offline
Posted 10/5/07
im as big a proponent of small government as anyone. (i see you live in the US, i do too. believe me, i agree our govt is currently wearing boots much to large for it's feet.)

but...by the nature of your example...your forming a government.
a community of people, punishing those who break the rules of the community...
sounds a lot like a government punishing those that break its laws.
and who determines the rules? even by saying you have one rule, your establishing a government.

i wish humans were all basically 'good' enough that they didnt need rules, but the fact is we kill and rob each other at a scarily high rate, so we do need the government in place to provide some sort of order to daily lives.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/5/07

3kgt wrote:

and, umm...not to threadjack, but i really am curious how you would justify someone raping someone, murdering someone in cold blood, stealing from a person (ie, not stealing bread from the store to feed your family), or just beating another up for no reason?


As I have said before, it is quite easy to justify anything if you assign a certain situation to the event. Notice how you have assigned a story to all the things you mentioned.

murdering in cold blood

stealing not to feed your family

beating another up for no reason

These are all too easy to counter...all I would have to do is reverse exactly what you said

Murdering to avenge my "insert close person to you here"

Stealing to feed my sick mother.

Beating up another for an important reason.


Now the subject of rape we have to study a bit more, I had hoped to avoid this because it actually requires me to think and use logic...and its way too late for either. But since you asked, I will kindly oblige...

Let us define rape as the action of forced intercourse. Now let me ask you this. Before the appearance of humanity on this earth, do you really think an idea like "rape" existed? Mother nature works by forced intercourse, the strong survive to repopulate the next generation. "Rape" is an intrinsically human dogma. It was created to keep order in society, just like any other rule or law imposed upon us. So in that sense "rape" is neither right or wrong, good or bad, rape is just rape. The attachment of a value of good or bad unto anything that happens in the world is a judgment made by our consciousness based upon the ideas instilled in our minds by our society. (lol run on sentence, idc its late I'm tired and this isn't a graded paper.)
1490 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/5/07

excalion wrote:

Now the subject of rape we have to study a bit more, I had hoped to avoid this because it actually requires me to think and use logic...and its way too late for either. But since you asked, I will kindly oblige...

Let us define rape as the action of forced intercourse. Now let me ask you this. Before the appearance of humanity on this earth, do you really think an idea like "rape" existed? Mother nature works by forced intercourse, the strong survive to repopulate the next generation. "Rape" is an intrinsically human dogma. It was created to keep order in society, just like any other rule or law imposed upon us. So in that sense "rape" is neither right or wrong, good or bad, rape is just rape. The attachment of a value of good or bad unto anything that happens in the world is a judgment made by our consciousness based upon the ideas instilled in our minds by our society. (lol run on sentence, idc its late I'm tired and this isn't a graded paper.)


There is 1 problem with that argument. If you leave such things as free variables, you will have a completely messed up outcome. In nature, murder is not and CANNOT be wrong. In fact, we kill billions of animals just to survive. However, if we assume that our laws are simply means of comfortable interaction within a necessarily imposed state (society) and should not be observed other than if that is convenient, we annul our reason to live completely. It doesn't matter if moss grows or not, or if a bacteria does. Same thing with the human race. Unless we assume that there are some values which are to be protected no matter what.
Wow sounds remarkably cheesy, but meant to be serious.
154 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Outside your wind...
Offline
Posted 10/5/07
so, then we still would need the laws. even conceding the exceptions you stated (which i dont agree with, but..thats not the point. the point is 'greater good' and all that stuff)
edit- you give examples of when its allowed, when its not. well, somehow we still need to make the rules of when it is to be allowed, and therefore need the govt.

/edit
we've both basically circled ourselves. we could argue the presense of justifiers on each side, and honestly both would be right. you never have the right to kill someone in cold blood. it could be argued (and i would agree) that you have the right to kill someone for attempting to kill you. ..etc
so, for the sake of not engaging in a circling, never ending debate, i'll drop the first three, but just say that i do find your argument weak, but im sure you find mine just as much if not moreso.
however, i cannot concede that rape is ever permissable.

to answer your question-before humanity appeared, no i doubt the concept of rape occured, because i doubt the presence of intelligent life prior to humanity. im pretty sure that a weed really doesnt care how it spreads its seeds. humans, however, do. its something we as a society place a huge respect on, and going against that is a basic 'wrong' that cannot and should not be allowed under any circumstances.
Posted 10/5/07

anvoice wrote:


excalion wrote:

Now the subject of rape we have to study a bit more, I had hoped to avoid this because it actually requires me to think and use logic...and its way too late for either. But since you asked, I will kindly oblige...

Let us define rape as the action of forced intercourse. Now let me ask you this. Before the appearance of humanity on this earth, do you really think an idea like "rape" existed? Mother nature works by forced intercourse, the strong survive to repopulate the next generation. "Rape" is an intrinsically human dogma. It was created to keep order in society, just like any other rule or law imposed upon us. So in that sense "rape" is neither right or wrong, good or bad, rape is just rape. The attachment of a value of good or bad unto anything that happens in the world is a judgment made by our consciousness based upon the ideas instilled in our minds by our society. (lol run on sentence, idc its late I'm tired and this isn't a graded paper.)


There is 1 problem with that argument. If you leave such things as free variables, you will have a completely messed up outcome. In nature, murder is not and CANNOT be wrong. In fact, we kill billions of animals just to survive. However, if we assume that our laws are simply means of comfortable interaction within a necessarily imposed state (society) and should not be observed other than if that is convenient, we annul our reason to live completely. It doesn't matter if moss grows or not, or if a bacteria does. Same thing with the human race. Unless we assume that there are some values which are to be protected no matter what.
Wow sounds remarkably cheesy, but meant to be serious.


Very good points .

I would like to add this .

Within nature , well use a pack of wolves as an example, when a animal wantonly kills the members of its pack , it is usually due to an illness that effects it mind , and the others in such a pack recognize this , and deal with the sick individual, either by expulsion , or execution, so that the pack may survive/protect other of its ilk from further infection. In most species , the killing of ones own , as opposed to another , is viewed as a crime . while the animal may not have complex enough a mind to understand the concept of crime , it will surely understand when something is out of place and a danger.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/5/07

anvoice wrote:

There is 1 problem with that argument. If you leave such things as free variables, you will have a completely messed up outcome. In nature, murder is not and CANNOT be wrong. In fact, we kill billions of animals just to survive. However, if we assume that our laws are simply means of comfortable interaction within a necessarily imposed state (society) and should not be observed other than if that is convenient, we annul our reason to live completely. It doesn't matter if moss grows or not, or if a bacteria does. Same thing with the human race. Unless we assume that there are some values which are to be protected no matter what.
Wow sounds remarkably cheesy, but meant to be serious.


You seem to seek comfort, and so I will bestow upon you security.
Think carefully about this quote: "I am a transparent eyeball, I am nothing, I see all, the currents of the universal being circulate through me, I am part and parcel of God."

Although I am a skeptic about God, this quote gets the feeling of what I am trying to express across. Try to observe this universe as not a part of the whole but an entirely different whole. What is it you will realize? Humans are egocentric, they falsely believe themselves to be superior. And thus it is with that belief that the rules and laws, along with our moral code is established. In reality, we exist but on a tiny little spec of dust floating around the vastness of the Universe, the survival, and the history of all of our predecessors are absolutely meaningless in the grand scheme of things that have been and will be. But we are usually blinded to this fact by our own egos, we become so wrapped up in our own world that we forget how small and insignificant we really are. With that in mind, let us examine the principles of right and wrong. Let us first establish that right and wrong are mutually constructive ideas. As one increases in intensity, so will the other appear to increase to compensate. Without good, evil cannot exist and without evil, good shall fade from our memories. With that in mind, you now hold within your grasp a fragment of transcendentalism. But as one truly realizes the magnitude of the above stated facts, and I feel regret every time I do this, one's world shatters to a million irretrievable pieces. "If there is no good or evil, and if all that I do is meaningless...why, why should I care at all about anything?" Do not worry, I have promised you security and comfort, and you shall receive both. Death is inevitable, eventually it comes to claim us all from this world. We do not have to work to attain death, but neither can we detain death; but the time before our eternal slumber is ours. Ours to devote to what we shall do. No matter how meaningless it seems, or how hopeless it appears. Even if all one is able to achieve in life is but a fleeting moment of the illusion of happiness, one should grasp at it with all of one's might. The meaning of life is not only the discovery that life is meaningless but the ability to smile at the end of this short amount of time we have on this beautiful earth.



...ok this is the last piece of thinking I'm doing for tonight, any further questions will be addressed tomorrow...

Oh yea btw, to sum up a little of what I said, we are no different from bacteria or moss, we just think we are because we are arrogant.
Posted 10/5/07

3kgt wrote:

im as big a proponent of small government as anyone. (i see you live in the US, i do too. believe me, i agree our govt is currently wearing boots much to large for it's feet.)

but...by the nature of your example...your forming a government.
a community of people, punishing those who break the rules of the community...
sounds a lot like a government punishing those that break its laws.
and who determines the rules? even by saying you have one rule, your establishing a government.

i wish humans were all basically 'good' enough that they didnt need rules, but the fact is we kill and rob each other at a scarily high rate, so we do need the government in place to provide some sort of order to daily lives.


Not a government , but a social structure .

Consider this, where as a community may come together and make a decision about one of its members , it has the ability to be dynamic , and choose the best course of action for the situation.

Where as a Government has a set list of rules it must adhere to , and making it static , laws and punishment set in stone despite circumstance .

Example : In a community of 100, a man has been stealing . A group of concerned members comes together to discuss the issue , and decide that, for now , the best course of action would be to confront the man and find out why he has been doing so , so that they may help their friend , and stop the theft . The man admits that he has been
committing the act , and explains that he has been unable to support himself , but been too embarrassed to go to anyone for help . as a group they reach an agreement , that they will help the man get back on his feet, and that he will do what he can to work off the stolen goods .

In the same situation , when confronted , the man kills one of the group , and begins attacking another . For the safety of the community , and those in immediate peril , they kill the man .
Dynamic courses of action to suit the situation.

Whereas in a governed society, the man would be put on trial , something that may take months , and cost money . In either situation , the man would be punished according to a pre determined set of guidelines , regardless of circumstance.
Within a courtroom ( ever had jury duty ) the point is to determine weather or not the act was commited , not weather it was justified.
Static , unchanging , with very little room for leeway.


Now don`t get me wrong . I am not an anarchist . Just an opponent of bloated and ineffective social systems.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/5/07
Actually the law of US has been changed many times, but that is not my main point.

What you proposed would work only in small communities.
Posted 10/5/07

excalion wrote:

Actually the law of US has been changed many times, but that is not my main point.

What you proposed would work only in small communities.


Only the law itself has been changed , not its function or operation.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/5/07
Why would its function need to be changed? What you have proposed is a law in itself. Its a law that says "Whenever someone commits a crime, a group of people will come together and see what is wrong with that person. Then they will decide a rightful course of action to take."

Sure that is all nice and dandy until you get the the "decide a rightful course of action to take" part. How do you decide such a thing? In reality you are still being ruled by another's rules. In the united states you are ruled by the judiciary and in the scenario you proposed you are ruled by the small group of people that decided the "rightful course of action" Does that make sense?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.