|
posted by dennisn on June 10th, 2008 at 12:05PM
Firstly, individual "morality" is just another neural process -- the same as what drives your muscles, releases chemicals to make you hungry, decides whether to pick the red pill, or the blue pill. It is not bound to obey/mimic any behaviour -- that is, there is no neuro-chemical law that enforces the rules of logic (or islam, etc) among the neurons participating in the formulation of thoughts. That is, the idea of "logic" and "right/wrong" are entirely man-made inventions.
So, morality simply being the neural faculty to decide what is good or bad, it is stupid and meaningless to blame it -- because "it" can be ANYTHING. Instead, the quote should have directly blamed things like Islam, and Anti-abortionists, etc.
Secondly, you guys are in no position to act as historical authorities on the Third Reich/Stalin. The opinions I expressed that day were just as unfounded as yours. There is nothing "obvious" about the necessity for a military, or secret ballots.
|
fadsf;posted by pasofol on June 10th, 2008 at 2:48PM
Necessity for military is one thing. But to state something like "Poles welcomed German openly" and ignoring the resistance plus countless deaths plus imprisonment is illogical.
As for the secret ballot, here's the best one http://www.cbc.ca/canada/...t_mom010509.html even for Canada with its goody good morals.
Plus countless other political prisoners around the world, makes secret ballots a necessity.
I like your believes but they aren't realistic. They assume too many things about humans and their overall moral ethics which as we see on a daily bases isn't true. I'm tempted in stealing your money and if you go after me I'll respond in saying it was for the better good. You have it in a bank account, one of the systems that holds back the man. Or whatever etc. So take it out in 100 dollar bills and put it somewhere where I can find it. |
posted by dennisn on June 10th, 2008 at 3:43PM
I didn't say they welcomed them "openly" -- I simply said that the morals of the majority of poles and germans (and i'm sure other cultures) at that time were very much in agreement with Nazi morals. And it was for this reason that #1 Hitler came into power and was openly supported (of course, not by /everyone/) and #2 Poland et al didn't offer enough resistance. Remember, it was culturally acceptable to hate Jews and gays and all sorts of other non-catholic things. Having militaries (or even a "state" for that matter) exacerbates things -- people feel artificially compelled to make everyone in their arbitrary sandbox conform to their ideals -- it segregates people and makes them more radical. And then, throwing militaries into this powder keg, wars are inevitable. Abolishing the state and militaries would instantly get rid of warfare.
As for the case of Jim Baxter, that's exactly why there is absolutely no need for secret ballots. We live in a society that shuns dumbasses like Wappel. A simple call to the media blew things out of proportion, and I'm sure Baxter will get waay more than he ever expected. The point is, you either live in a decent society, or you don't. If you do, secret ballots are unecessary (they're not bad -- just not necessary); if you don't, it doesn't matter what kind of polling you do, you'll get fucked over. Get it?
How do you figure my "beliefs" are unrealistic? I am aware of people's temptation to steal my money -- I realize many people are corrupt -- and I have no problem fighting them on my own. There is absolutely no need for policed-states -- or even states -- they only serve to oppress people.
Also, banks don't "hold back the man". (Although I still don't like the way they work, and am still looking for a similar service that simply holds my money and provides easy access to it.)
|
posted by dsk on June 11th, 2008 at 1:07AM
>Abolishing the state and militaries would instantly get rid of warfare.
Evidence?
|
|
fa;sdjfposted by pasofol on June 10th, 2008 at 4:52PM
Getting rid of government/military. End result war lords, sadly there's always someone with a gun who sees his point of view being more important. Best example I can think of is Afghanistan after they push out the USSR but I'm not the best historian.
Also enough resistance? What's enough resistance the extermination of all the resistance personnel by death, say like in genocide, would that satisfy enough resistance? Warsaw uprising, 85% of the city destroyed and about half of the population of the city dead. Don't quote me on the figures but they are extremely high.
Also there's a reason most Jews left other European countries for Poland because it was the most tolerant for the Jews. Of course there was anti-semitism as there is now but that still doesn't explain why force was used/needed to enter if morals are similar enough (not just the jews/gays fought back). Say like Nazis going into Austria that can be said openly. As I remember you first stated openly then made some weird half openly statement like now after the force was brought up. Plus the German invasion was to gain power of the land and its resources for the best race. The Jews/gays was just the icing on the cake.
Instead of trying to explain why the resistance didn't work, or why the soldiers didn't retreat or see their error. You tend to instead to jump to they shouldn't exist. The fact remains they do exist and are unlikely to go away. Why because people who see that the military that they fund is there to protect their believes/rights from other invaders. If not you won't last long even if you have an anarchy state. Also you'll bring up that they'll see the logic of their ways and why the military isn't needed so on. Since they are logical people and will listen to your reason. Sadly I've listened to yours countless times and am no closer to seeing your light. So either you are wrong or you can't explain your logic well enough. OR I am just one illogical person you'll encounter but I fear you'll realize one day that makes the majority of the people who doesn't and won't share your believes.
Secret ballots: again are there so the proper and fairest form of government democracy can be put in place without the fear of the current ruling party/government taking reprisals if they don't like the results or if you pick the loser the ruling party can't fuck with you.
Again your beliefs only can come true if everyone does as you expect. Since they do nothing as you expect now what makes them change all of a sudden if say the government is gone. Example maybe people like to have someone (Police) who controls the law so they don't have to. In the cowboy days there use to be a sheriff why is that?
Again, I can hold your money. I'll even maybe return you some if you need it. Is money that important for you that you must have it in your possession? Shouldn't you not need money if you don't need anything that society provides you? You should be able to do without all the supports in your life or are you relying on others to provide you with everything for a meaningless paper?
|
|
|
|
