From what I read it wasn't a case of "let's put Bush on a spike!"
I think the story was that they needed lots of fake heads for spikes, and instead of making each and every one of them they just used some that they had around as extras. One of them noticed that this one looked a bit like W.
So not exactly a case of "we need heads? Let's spike Bush!"
Placed a mass produced plastic head that vaguely resembles an ex-President onto a stick, placed it in the background of a television program and recorded a scene in it?
And idiots, even though it has no impact at all or meaning (it's a fantasy TV show, not a documentary) have gotten worked up about it and forced the producers to apologize?
I can't comment on your job or how it may or may not have skewed your view but I wouldn't go as far as to say all news reported it utter bs...
Especially in the UK, AFAIK there are rules on reporting outright lies.
Its not reporting lies though PF, its just draging everything they can from a pointless story.
Said pointless story wouldnt mean anything until someone tries to take it out of context and draw in some attention.
However, i cant stand journalism as there is rarely a non-biased story or one that has not been blown out of proportion.
Lets face it, if they print something as it actually is, rather than a different take on it, it would not sell.
Some stories are an exception, but a very rare one.
purplefood wrote:I can't comment on your job or how it may or may not have skewed your view but I wouldn't go as far as to say all news reported it utter bs...
Especially in the UK, AFAIK there are rules on reporting outright lies.
ah right thats why we are wasting millions on the inquiry .... of course the rules...
Jackal wrote:Its not reporting lies though PF, its just draging everything they can from a pointless story.
Said pointless story wouldnt mean anything until someone tries to take it out of context and draw in some attention.
However, i cant stand journalism as there is rarely a non-biased story or one that has not been blown out of proportion.
Lets face it, if they print something as it actually is, rather than a different take on it, it would not sell.
Some stories are an exception, but a very rare one.
True I'm not saying that they don't sensationalise things but it's not total bs either.
They don't outright lie or make stuff up.
They may make stories out of non-stories but that's hardly a new trend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tauzor wrote:
purplefood wrote:I can't comment on your job or how it may or may not have skewed your view but I wouldn't go as far as to say all news reported it utter bs...
Especially in the UK, AFAIK there are rules on reporting outright lies.
ah right thats why we are wasting millions on the inquiry .... of course the rules...
I'd argue it's important to have a media that knows it can't do what it likes and get away with it.
Admittedly spending millions on it is a waste of money in this economy...
Oh of course its nothing new, its been around for pretty much as long as the media its self has.
However, its still just hyped up stories to make it sell, which is why i rarely buy a paper from the shop any more
Why do i want to read a 2 page spread about a fething cat that was rescued from a tree or from a drain?
Things like this just irritate me more than make me want to read them lol.
Congratulations, her mission is to now be on benefits for the rest of her hopefully short life.
But this is the kind of thing that makes news now.
Sad times indeed.
purplefood wrote:I can't comment on your job or how it may or may not have skewed your view but I wouldn't go as far as to say all news reported it utter bs...
Especially in the UK, AFAIK there are rules on reporting outright lies.
Outright lies yes but skewing the truth so much that it may as well be a lie? Thats par for the course with large sections of the print media at the very least.
purplefood wrote:I can't comment on your job or how it may or may not have skewed your view but I wouldn't go as far as to say all news reported it utter bs...
Especially in the UK, AFAIK there are rules on reporting outright lies.
Outright lies yes but skewing the truth so much that it may as well be a lie? Thats par for the course with large sections of the print media at the very least.
I'll give you that, printed media seems to be a lot more... inflammatory recently.
Sadly they seem to make up a large amount of the 'news' these days...
All news is made up. News stopped been "facts" when it started to be a business to make money
New flash (ironic!) its allways been a business to make money.
Yeah, I was having difficulty remembering a time when news wasn't distributed by business or propaganda.
To be fair, we get a lot more news than we used to. A lot more. As a result, what has been considered news worthy has changed. It's not like people aren't reporting on the situation in Syria and covering this instead. It's just that we'll get Syria, and Bush-on-a-stick, and squid impregnation stories too. If you don't want to hear news like this, it's never been easier to filter the news you have exposure to.
And, you know, don't make Dakka your primary news source.
htj wrote:
Yeah, I was having difficulty remembering a time when news wasn't distributed by business or propaganda.
It's got to be one or the other, I'm a socialist and think everything should be state owned, everything except the media.
If you think everything should be state owned, then I'm not sure socialist is really the most accurate term for your political stance. Even with the media being non-state owned, I'd say that's a lot closer to communism than socialism. The state you describe would be a pretty difficult one to achieve.
htj wrote:
Yeah, I was having difficulty remembering a time when news wasn't distributed by business or propaganda.
It's got to be one or the other, I'm a socialist and think everything should be state owned, everything except the media.
If you think everything should be state owned, then I'm not sure socialist is really the most accurate term for your political stance. Even with the media being non-state owned, I'd say that's a lot closer to communism than socialism. The state you describe would be a pretty difficult one to achieve.
Yeah, I'm pretty much a full blown Marxist, but without the revolution bits, the problem is when you say you're a Marxist people look at you funny. So socialism as a means to communism as a means to utopia would suit me just fine.
htj wrote:
Yeah, I was having difficulty remembering a time when news wasn't distributed by business or propaganda.
It's got to be one or the other, I'm a socialist and think everything should be state owned, everything except the media.
If you think everything should be state owned, then I'm not sure socialist is really the most accurate term for your political stance. Even with the media being non-state owned, I'd say that's a lot closer to communism than socialism. The state you describe would be a pretty difficult one to achieve.
Yeah, I'm pretty much a full blown Marxist, but without the revolution bits, the problem is when you say you're a Marxist people look at you funny. So socialism as a means to communism as a means to utopia would suit me just fine.
Okay, that makes sense. People look at you weird if you say you're a Marxist in the UK? I figured people wouldn't react that way as much over there. I've met a decent number of self-identified communists/Marxists in Austria, but they were mostly university students or of student age, and we were usually in private or with other people of similar age when we talked about it, so I'm not really sure how older Austrians would react (I'm guessing it could go either way, depending on a multitude of factors). I think people tend to react a bit more neutrally if someone says they're a Marxist, since that's a more specific. If someone just says they're a communist, it's a bit more ambiguous since there are lot of different flavors, many of which are rightly perceived very negatively.
Well this is the country where the Daily Mail has more readers than the Independent, and that gave News Corp so much power they thought that
1. they were above the law
and 2. they effectively decided who won general elections
As you say the student population are generally more leftist but there are a sizeable chunk of young conservatives. And we don't have any form of left in parliament (apart from the Greens).
Just have a look through some of the Off Topic threads where Capitalism is questioned and people jump to it's defence and claim it responsible for every type of progress in human civilisation and then claim Communism just sticks people in gulags, and has been proven not to work because Stalin.
htj wrote:
Yeah, I was having difficulty remembering a time when news wasn't distributed by business or propaganda.
It's got to be one or the other, I'm a socialist and think everything should be state owned, everything except the media.
If you think everything should be state owned, then I'm not sure socialist is really the most accurate term for your political stance. Even with the media being non-state owned, I'd say that's a lot closer to communism than socialism. The state you describe would be a pretty difficult one to achieve.
Yeah, I'm pretty much a full blown Marxist, but without the revolution bits, the problem is when you say you're a Marxist people look at you funny. So socialism as a means to communism as a means to utopia would suit me just fine.
Wow you just proved everything McCarthy said was true. I'm impressed.
To quote the immortal bard: "have you no decency sir!"
"Have you no decency" was a question asked OF McCarthy, pointing out that he in fact had no decency, and shaming the rest of Congress into realizing that the Un-American Activities Committee was in fact an un-American witchhunt. I know about McCarthyism and I cannot figure out what your post meant, Fraz.
Corpsesarefun wrote:My apologies, my knowledge of foreign historical politicians is obviously lacking...
IIRC McCarthy was the nutcase who started a witch hunt in American society for Communists even imprisoning some of them.
He was a total looney and frankly a bit of a dick...
purplefood wrote:I can't comment on your job or how it may or may not have skewed your view but I wouldn't go as far as to say all news reported it utter bs...
Especially in the UK, AFAIK there are rules on reporting outright lies.
ah right thats why we are wasting millions on the inquiry .... of course the rules...
I presume you mean the Leveson enquiry, the subject of which is the use of illegal means to obtain information by the media, not the fabrication of news stories.
Mannahnin wrote:"Have you no decency" was a question asked OF McCarthy, pointing out that he in fact had no decency, and shaming the rest of Congress into realizing that the Un-American Activities Committee was in fact an un-American witchhunt. I know about McCarthyism and I cannot figure out what your post meant, Fraz.
The post meant a communist hiding under the guise of being a socialist, it so fits the nice 50s arguments.
Frazzled has to throw in the "no decency" as it effectively destroyed the McCarthy wave, is the opposite of the above arguments, and is a really really cool bit of theater. (it also means Frazzled is having difficulty directly linking youtube right now). You have to educate the youngins somehow...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
purplefood wrote:
Corpsesarefun wrote:My apologies, my knowledge of foreign historical politicians is obviously lacking...
IIRC McCarthy was the nutcase who started a witch hunt in American society for Communists even imprisoning some of them.
He was a total looney and frankly a bit of a dick...
htj wrote:
Yeah, I was having difficulty remembering a time when news wasn't distributed by business or propaganda.
It's got to be one or the other, I'm a socialist and think everything should be state owned, everything except the media.
.
If you are a true socialist, then there is no state!
Marx said that the ultimate extension of communism is that, after a totalitarian state has procured enough of everything and there is no want, the state can dissolve. After all, conflict is about possession of resources, and if we all have enough then why would we need to fight? So governance, police, everything is gone.
Arguments regarding the practicalities of this aside, this was Marx's ultimate view of the 'end of history' for communism. Except that the likes of Trotsky/Lenin were quick to bury that bit of his writing under the carpet as it would have meant a reduction in their executive power, and as well all know it is very easy for pigs to become men..
As such you could say, in the strictest sense of the term, a true communist state has never existed.
Pacific wrote: If you are a true socialist, then there is no state!
Marx said that the ultimate extension of communism is that, after a totalitarian state has procured enough of everything and there is no want, the state can dissolve. After all, conflict is about possession of resources, and if we all have enough then why would we need to fight? So governance, police, everything is gone.
Arguments regarding the practicalities of this aside, this was Marx's ultimate view of the 'end of history' for communism. Except that the likes of Trotsky/Lenin were quick to bury that bit of his writing under the carpet as it would have meant a reduction in their executive power, and as well all know it is very easy for pigs to become men..
As such you could say, in the strictest sense of the term, a true communist state has never existed.
Well the two options for ownership currently are private and public, I think things should be publicly owned and run for the benefit of the many rather than the few. I totally agree that a true communist state has never existed or even come close. Maybe one day someone will get curious and just try it as a social experiment.
And Fraz currently I agree with you, we are socialised to compete for limited opportunities, but Plato raised the point in Republic that people could be taught from a infant to think without self interest, but you would have to start with infants.
And d-usa, you raise an entirely valid point, we are seeing the start of the movement against capitalism and it will only get bigger, louder and less reasonable as years go on.
d-usa wrote:I feel the same way about pure unregulated capitalism. Looks good on paper, but greed and the human element make it impossible to actually function.
Yep.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:
Pacific wrote:
If you are a true socialist, then there is no state!
Marx said that the ultimate extension of communism is that, after a totalitarian state has procured enough of everything and there is no want, the state can dissolve. After all, conflict is about possession of resources, and if we all have enough then why would we need to fight? So governance, police, everything is gone.
Arguments regarding the practicalities of this aside, this was Marx's ultimate view of the 'end of history' for communism. Except that the likes of Trotsky/Lenin were quick to bury that bit of his writing under the carpet as it would have meant a reduction in their executive power, and as well all know it is very easy for pigs to become men..
As such you could say, in the strictest sense of the term, a true communist state has never existed.
Well the two options for ownership currently are private and public, I think things should be publicly owned and run for the benefit of the many rather than the few. I totally agree that a true communist state has never existed or even come close. Maybe one day someone will get curious and just try it as a social experiment.
And Fraz currently I agree with you, we are socialised to compete for limited opportunities, but Plato raised the point in Republic that people could be taught from a infant to think without self interest, but you would have to start with infants.
And d-usa, you raise an entirely valid point, we are seeing the start of the movement against capitalism and it will only get bigger, louder and less reasonable as years go on.
So you really are a true commuist, yet you're typing on an evil running capitalist dog computer. Love it!
Plato was an idiot and probably liked boys in the wrong way.
Show me a utopian and I'll show you either a: 1) hopped up idiot who fell off Life's short bus and should not be allowed to breed; or 2) someone else waiting for this to start so he can take over.
Frazzled wrote:So you really are a true commuist, yet you're typing on an evil running capitalist dog computer. Love it!
Plato was an idiot and probably liked boys in the wrong way.
Show me a utopian and I'll show you either a: 1) hopped up idiot who fell off Life's short bus and should not be allowed to breed; or 2) someone else waiting for this to start so he can take over.
Well my computer was made in china, but yeah it is still part of the fruits of capitalism, it was (rather uncapitalisticly) the only choice though.
Plato definitely liked little boys, ask Aristotle, but that was all the rage back then, so it's excusable. But he was quite a clever chap and I'm inclined to think Christianity borrowed some of his ideas about the Form of Good and his allegory of the cave.
Someone who wants utopia right here, right now is something of an idiot, however someone who offers up a path that may take centuries but will eventually result in a world of true equality and meritocracy is probably not a hundred percent right, but at least thinking in the right sort of terms and should have their ideas listened to.
Frazzled wrote:Plato was an idiot and probably liked boys in the wrong way.
Show me a utopian and I'll show you either a: 1) hopped up idiot who fell off Life's short bus and should not be allowed to breed; or 2) someone else waiting for this to start so he can take over.
Plato's communism isn't communism in the modern sense. The Republic included classes, owned goods, and a shadowy governments that made laws without pretending to make it for the people. What was ''communised'' was the relations between the military/police/nobility. That particular class of citizens didn't own goods, or have family, or did anything that wasn't for the Republic. They would kill, die and breed when, where and with whom the philosopher-kings told them to.
Basically, it would've been a totalitarian community where the army/police is completly brainwashed and instrumentalized, the general population kept in a state of happy ignorance, and the shadowy government of philosopher-kings decides everything and makes up mythical stories to make the population obey their edicts.
IIRC, there was one attempt to instore such a government in a german city, in the 1600s. It lasted about a year, and didn't end well... I'll have to go a play a bit of Total War Stainless Steel to figure out the name of the city... oh chucks
Frazzled wrote:Plato was an idiot and probably liked boys in the wrong way.
Show me a utopian and I'll show you either a: 1) hopped up idiot who fell off Life's short bus and should not be allowed to breed; or 2) someone else waiting for this to start so he can take over.
Plato's communism isn't communism in the modern sense. The Republic included classes, owned goods, and a shadowy governments that made laws without pretending to make it for the people. What was ''communised'' was the relations between the military/police/nobility. That particular class of citizens didn't own goods, or have family, or did anything that wasn't for the Republic. They would kill, die and breed when, where and with whom the philosopher-kings told them to.
Basically, it would've been a totalitarian community where the army/police is completly brainwashed and instrumentalized, the general population kept in a state of happy ignorance, and the shadowy government of philosopher-kings decides everything and makes up mythical stories to make the population obey their edicts.
IIRC, there was one attempt to instore such a government in a german city, in the 1600s. It lasted about a year, and didn't end well... I'll have to go a play a bit of Total War Stainless Steel to figure out the name of the city... oh chucks
I never claimed Platos Republic was communist, simply that he advocated what you call "brainwashing," which I called socialisation to remove self interest. Hence why my view of Plato's Republic is less unsavoury than yours, I wouldn't mind being in a totalitarian regime if those in charge had no concept of self interest and did every act for the public good.
Slavery was all the rage back then too. Was it excusable?
Your theory on Christianity is incorrect. I highly doubt Jesus ever heard of Plato. He was a Jewish rabbi from the sticks.
What path? You don't change animal instinct and nature unless you change the animal. Unless he proposed a way to genetically turn us into ants he didn't do gak.
Coolyo294 wrote:How did a thread about George Bush being decapitated in GoT turn into a debate about communism?
Through the power of discussion!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:I never claimed Platos Republic was communist, simply that he advocated what you call "brainwashing," which I called socialisation to remove self interest. Hence why my view of Plato's Republic is less unsavoury than yours, I wouldn't mind being in a totalitarian regime if those in charge had no concept of self interest and did every act for the public good.
I just wanted to point out that Plato's communism wasn't to be equated with Marx's communism.
And we're talking about a government which can decide which child to feed and which to let die. Which music can be played in public, and which can't (and a death penalty at that too). A Republic that forces children to go with there parents to war...
It's very unsavory. It isn't clear if Plato's Republic is supposed to be red as a political project, or as a fable to illustrate how the human mind works by comparing it to a City. All that is sure is that if it was a political project, then Plato was nuts.
Frazzled wrote:Slavery was all the rage back then too. Was it excusable?
Your theory on Christianity is incorrect. I highly doubt Jesus ever heard of Plato. He was a Jewish rabbi from the sticks.
What path? You don't change animal instinct and nature unless you change the animal. Unless he proposed a way to genetically turn us into ants he didn't do gak.
Greek and Roman slavery was a lot more excusable than the slavery of Africans that our cultures engaged in.
A lot of theologists think there are parallels between Christianity and Greek fables and social customs, after all the Bible was written by men rather than Jesus himself.
Memes can be as important as genes in peoples actions.
dæl wrote: Greek and Roman slavery was a lot more excusable than the slavery of Africans that our cultures engaged in.
You have to be more precise. Each ancient greek city had their own version of slavery : Lacedemonia (the kingdom of Sparta) was completly bat-gak dumb, slaves were 'communised', and were to answer to all order from all citizen. If a slave was ordered to be at 2 different places by 2 different citizen, at the same time, and couldn't (obviously), he was to be killed. Also, 'slave' basically refered to anyone not born out of a noble spartiate.
In Athen, a slave was closer to a family member that didn't have as much right as the citizen. He was garanteed 2 meals, housing and clothing.
In Rome, you have to specify the timeline. At some points, slavery was horrible, at others, it was a lot more agreable. for exemple, a law made it that, in the case of a citizen's murder, all slaves in earshot of that citizen's scream were to be executed.
dæl wrote:
Greek and Roman slavery was a lot more excusable than the slavery of Africans that our cultures engaged in.
You have to be more precise. Each ancient greek city had their own version of slavery : Lacedemonia (the kingdom of Sparta) was completly bat-gak dumb, slaves were 'communised', and were to answer to all order from all citizen. If a slave was ordered to be at 2 different places by 2 different citizen, at the same time, and couldn't (obviously), he was to be killed. Also, 'slave' basically refered to anyone not born out of a noble spartiate.
In Athen, a slave was closer to a family member that didn't have as much right as the citizen. He was garanteed 2 meals, housing and clothing.
In Rome, you have to specify the timeline. At some points, slavery was horrible, at others, it was a lot more agreable. for exemple, a law made it that, in the case of a citizen's murder, all slaves in earshot of that citizen's scream were to be executed.
I wasn't aware of such idiocy, cheers for the heads up. I knew vaguely of the Athenian type, and knew that at certain points in Roman history slaves could own property and even other slaves. Didn't Spartan slaves had to be able to write and such as it was considered unSpartan to do such girly things?
ROman slavery was..shall we say...anybody can wear the belt. Think the only time when slaves were freed in mass was the legions raised just by slavery alone...think it was 5 legions. 20 yrs service deal. The recruitment was aimed specificaly at the slaves
d-usa wrote:I feel the same way about pure unregulated capitalism. Looks good on paper, but greed and the human element make it impossible to actually function.
That's true, but just as a true communist state (according to Marx) has never really existed, a true 100% capitalist state has never existed either, as far as I know. Most western nations are a mix of capitalism and socialism, including the US.
dæl wrote:
Pacific wrote:
If you are a true socialist, then there is no state!
Marx said that the ultimate extension of communism is that, after a totalitarian state has procured enough of everything and there is no want, the state can dissolve. After all, conflict is about possession of resources, and if we all have enough then why would we need to fight? So governance, police, everything is gone.
Arguments regarding the practicalities of this aside, this was Marx's ultimate view of the 'end of history' for communism. Except that the likes of Trotsky/Lenin were quick to bury that bit of his writing under the carpet as it would have meant a reduction in their executive power, and as well all know it is very easy for pigs to become men..
As such you could say, in the strictest sense of the term, a true communist state has never existed.
Well the two options for ownership currently are private and public, I think things should be publicly owned and run for the benefit of the many rather than the few. I totally agree that a true communist state has never existed or even come close. Maybe one day someone will get curious and just try it as a social experiment.
And Fraz currently I agree with you, we are socialised to compete for limited opportunities, but Plato raised the point in Republic that people could be taught from a infant to think without self interest, but you would have to start with infants.
And d-usa, you raise an entirely valid point, we are seeing the start of the movement against capitalism and it will only get bigger, louder and less reasonable as years go on.
It will definitely be interesting. I'm not sure calling it a movement against capitalism is really the most accurate way to describe it though, since as far as I know, no first world western nation has a completely capitalist system. I've hear people in the US say "capitalism had its chance," with the implication being that we should switch to socialism, but the truth is it really didn't, no more than communism did. A better way to put it might be a movement against the current system and its problems, not all of which are the fault of its capitalistic elements.
I just think it's a little bit shortsighted to blame capitalism for the current economic problems, since pure capitalism isn't what most countries have. Using capitalism as a scapegoat seems primarily to indicate a failure to identify the real issues.
Greek and Roman slavery was a lot more excusable than the slavery of Africans that our cultures engaged in.
***horsegak. Spartacus and the slave rebellions prove otherwise. Even Britain and the US South didn’t have gladiatorial contests for sport. (We have since rectified that with football. )
A lot of theologists think there are parallels between Christianity and Greek fables and social customs, after all the Bible was written by men rather than Jesus himself.
***Except of course the Jesus freak parts weren’t.
Memes can be as important as genes in peoples actions
NO, they can't. Utopia/heaven/paradise are all in heavenly propertion for a reason. They don't exist here.
dæl wrote:
Greek and Roman slavery was a lot more excusable than the slavery of Africans that our cultures engaged in.
You have to be more precise. Each ancient greek city had their own version of slavery : Lacedemonia (the kingdom of Sparta) was completly bat-gak dumb, slaves were 'communised', and were to answer to all order from all citizen. If a slave was ordered to be at 2 different places by 2 different citizen, at the same time, and couldn't (obviously), he was to be killed. Also, 'slave' basically refered to anyone not born out of a noble spartiate.
In Athen, a slave was closer to a family member that didn't have as much right as the citizen. He was garanteed 2 meals, housing and clothing.
In Rome, you have to specify the timeline. At some points, slavery was horrible, at others, it was a lot more agreable. for exemple, a law made it that, in the case of a citizen's murder, all slaves in earshot of that citizen's scream were to be executed.
I wasn't aware of such idiocy, cheers for the heads up. I knew vaguely of the Athenian type, and knew that at certain points in Roman history slaves could own property and even other slaves. Didn't Spartan slaves had to be able to write and such as it was considered unSpartan to do such girly things?
Yeah, in general, the only reason slavery in ancient Rome, Greece, and in other nations of antiquity is "more excusable" is because it's been a lot longer since it was practiced. While at certain times in certain places slaves might have been treated reasonably well, there were certainly other times and places when ancient slavery was just as brutal as the more recent form of African slavery.
Hordini wrote:
It will definitely be interesting. I'm not sure calling it a movement against capitalism is really the most accurate way to describe it though, since as far as I know, no first world western nation has a completely capitalist system. I've hear people in the US say "capitalism had its chance," with the implication being that we should switch to socialism, but the truth is it really didn't, no more than communism did. A better way to put it might be a movement against the current system and its problems, not all of which are the fault of its capitalistic elements.
I just think it's a little bit shortsighted to blame capitalism for the current economic problems, since pure capitalism isn't what most countries have. Using capitalism as a scapegoat seems primarily to indicate a failure to identify the real issues.
I agree there has been no true capitalist state, however a lot of the problems in the world do stem from the capitalist "accumulation of personal wealth ahead of any social responsibility" mindset. Hence why we do regulate companies to not dump waste and to give employees some rights, if we didn't things would be horrible for the majority of people.
Frazzled wrote:
Memes can be as important as genes in peoples actions
NO, they can't.
Sure they can, otherwise men would be killing each other everytime a pretty girl walked into the room. All of our social norms are passed down with socialisation, they aren't genetic.
dæl wrote:
Sure they can, otherwise men would be killing each other everytime a pretty girl walked into the room. All of our social norms are passed down with socialisation, they aren't genetic.
Jails are full or men who killed men over women (or over other men too I guess). Your premise is false.
dæl wrote:I wasn't aware of such idiocy, cheers for the heads up. I knew vaguely of the Athenian type, and knew that at certain points in Roman history slaves could own property and even other slaves. Didn't Spartan slaves had to be able to write and such as it was considered unSpartan to do such girly things?
A 'slave', to spartiates, was anyone born in a village of Lacedemonia, but not born to one of the citizen. Or anyone kidnapped. The citizenry of Sparta would ritually declare war against their own slaves every couple of years, and part of the 'graduation' for young spartiates was to go hunt down some slaves and kill them.
I doubt the average Laconian knew how to read. Or even that 'reading' existed. They probably just lived in constant fear of being killed by one of their lords.
Yeah, Sparta was crap. Their only redeeming value was that they were somewhat more liberal with their women, in the sense that they allowed them to play sports, and that 'being bitchy' was considered a quality in their women, so they didn't beat them up when they talked back (which is were the expression 'giving a laconic answer' comes from).
Jackal wrote:However, i cant stand journalism as there is rarely a non-biased story or one that has not been blown out of proportion. Lets face it, if they print something as it actually is, rather than a different take on it, it would not sell.
There was a murder a town across from us that you may have heard of involving an aspiring footballer and his 15 year old girlfreind being stabbed to death.
]This story A guy I row with daily (as in the sport, not arguing) knows one of the armed response team that turned up at the house, and according to him the media reports are massively toned down.
For example the "injury he sustained" according to the article was, according to the policeman, due to him trying to cut off his fingers, before being tazed.
So there are some cases where stuff is toned down.
dæl wrote:
Sure they can, otherwise men would be killing each other everytime a pretty girl walked into the room. All of our social norms are passed down with socialisation, they aren't genetic.
Jails are full or men who killed men over women (or over other men too I guess). Your premise is false.
dæl wrote: Sure they can, otherwise men would be killing each other everytime a pretty girl walked into the room. All of our social norms are passed down with socialisation, they aren't genetic.
Jails are full or men who killed men over women (or over other men too I guess). Your premise is false.
That's hardly the norm though is it.
Thats because police, courts, and guns lots of guns dear god so many joyous guns!
So you're proposing utopia relies upon a machine gun?
What path? You don't change animal instinct and nature unless you change the animal. Unless he proposed a way to genetically turn us into ants he didn't do gak.
Absolutely, the only way it could ever work is a) A complete abundance of resources. Marx stipulated this, but even with modern agriculture and industry the results don't even come close. Perhaps the only way would be with some kind of Star Trek-esque replicator that can literally manufacture things out of thin air - oh and we wouldn't have enough space for each other either, so some kind of split-universe where we can each inhabit and be lords of our own reality. So, probably no time soon. B) Fundamentally alter the nature of not only ourselves, but truly take that apple offered by the snake and leave the Garden of Eden forever. And by that I mean completely separate our consciousness from the rest of the natural world around us. The pulls within society, those that make us altruistic towards our fellow man, or want to horde all the firewood for ourselves, have been engrained in not only us but complex forms of life for an awfully long time. You could say they are intrinsically part of the evolution of life - despite our sapience, these factors continue to pull us one way or another, with players on the stage helping to push us one way or another throughout history.
But if we were able to separate our consciousness from the more bestial aspects of our nature, what would remain? Are the two in fact exclusive elements? Will we ever reach a state of true enlightenment, and of pure reason, or will it all disappear in a moment of madness? Have other sapient beings come into being on other worlds; has the galaxy already been witness to a million mushroom clouds expanding on a million separate occasions, the unavoidable and ultimate extension of Zug the bipeds first instinct to pick up a big rock and smash his fellow over the head with it, so he could nick his food?
Socialization does involve us learning decent and ethical modes of behavior. Most of us want to think of ourselves as good people, and have checks on our actions based much more on our sense of self-worth and social consequences than on fear of violent repurcussions. Most of us, anyway. Of course the 24/7 news cycle means that we are more aware of all the violent exceptions, even though violent crime has been declining for a long time.
Frazzled wrote:
A lot of theologists think there are parallels between Christianity and Greek fables and social customs, after all the Bible was written by men rather than Jesus himself.
***Except of course the Jesus freak parts weren’t.
The Golden Rule goes back at least to the Greeks (or even the Egyptions), though it's also prominent in the Torah, and Jesus espouses it twice, in Matthew and Luke. Most of the moral teachings in Christianity predate Christianity itself.
Mannahnin wrote:Socialization does involve us learning decent and ethical modes of behavior. Most of us want to think of ourselves as good people, and have checks on our actions based much more on our sense of self-worth and social consequences than on fear of violent repurcussions. Most of us, anyway. Of course the 24/7 news cycle means that we are more aware of all the violent exceptions, even though violent crime has been declining for a long time.
Even counting the wars of the last century, we are phenomenally less violent then we were let's say, 1000 years ago. All the stats :
Mannahnin wrote:Socialization does involve us learning decent and ethical modes of behavior. Most of us want to think of ourselves as good people, and have checks on our actions based much more on our sense of self-worth and social consequences than on fear of violent repurcussions. Most of us, anyway. Of course the 24/7 news cycle means that we are more aware of all the violent exceptions, even though violent crime has been declining for a long time.
Frazzled wrote:
A lot of theologists think there are parallels between Christianity and Greek fables and social customs, after all the Bible was written by men rather than Jesus himself.
***Except of course the Jesus freak parts weren’t.
The Golden Rule goes back at least to the Greeks (or even the Egyptions), though it's also prominent in the Torah, and Jesus espouses it twice, in Matthew and Luke. Most of the moral teachings in Christianity predate Christianity itself.
And none of them have anything to do with the Greeks (unless you count the Phillistines of course).
Ancient Buddha say, when you butt heads with a barbarian tribe that talks to burning plants, get out of their way.
Frazzled wrote:
And none of them have anything to do with the Greeks (unless you count the Phillistines of course).
Ancient Buddha say, when you butt heads with a barbarian tribe that talks to burning plants, get out of their way.
Well you have the Pandora/Eve thing blaming women for all mans ills, and the stolen fire/fruit of the tree of knowledge. Cronus acts similarly to Herod with the killing of children when told he would be overthrown. They both have a Flood, but pretty much every ancient culture did as there was one, an Island just south of Crete fell into the sea (some believe this is where the myth of Atlantis comes from).
Frazzled wrote: And none of them have anything to do with the Greeks (unless you count the Phillistines of course). Ancient Buddha say, when you butt heads with a barbarian tribe that talks to burning plants, get out of their way.
Well you have the Pandora/Eve thing blaming women for all mans ills, and the stolen fire/fruit of the tree of knowledge. Cronus acts similarly to Herod with the killing of children when told he would be overthrown. They both have a Flood, but pretty much every ancient culture did as there was one, an Island just south of Crete fell into the sea (some believe this is where the myth of Atlantis comes from).
And none of that has anything to do with some pissant semetic tribe that got its rear kicked by every other semetic tribe in North Africa until it started talking to burning plants and got all uppity.
Sorry. Of course maybe the Greeks got their ideas from them...
But back to your crazed concept that ancient slavery was better and that people can be made to understand and live utopia from the barrel of an AK, eh Comrade?
Frazzled wrote:
But back to your crazed concept that ancient slavery was better and that people can be made to understand and live utopia from the barrel of an AK, eh Comrade?
Certain types were.
I never claimed that utopia should be at the barrel of a gun, that wouldn't be very utopic now would it.
Frazzled wrote:
But back to your crazed concept that ancient slavery was better and that people can be made to understand and live utopia from the barrel of an AK, eh Comrade?
Certain types were.
I never claimed that utopia should be at the barrel of a gun, that wouldn't be very utopic now would it.
But you can't have people doing what you want them to do unless you make them do it.
Come on Marxist you know this. Your hero estolled the need of the state to enforce make it so.
dæl wrote:Not really, you motivate people with things other than sticks, you forget the large majority of the world has bugger all of its profits.
And strangely enough those "have nots" will openly resent and even resort to violence against the "have tos" when they try to help them and improve their way of living... Its a strange thing, the human race...
dæl wrote:Not really, you motivate people with things other than sticks, you forget the large majority of the world has bugger all of its profits.
And strangely enough those "have nots" will openly resent and even resort to violence against the "have tos" when they try to help them and improve their way of living... Its a strange thing, the human race...
dæl wrote:Not really, you motivate people with things other than sticks, you forget the large majority of the world has bugger all of its profits.
And strangely enough those "have nots" will openly resent and even resort to violence against the "have tos" when they try to help them and improve their way of living... Its a strange thing, the human race...
What are you referring to?
I'm saying that better living conditions aren't the same motivators for some cultures as they are for ours. A large chunk of the human population of the world would be quite prepared to give up all of the "worlds profits" if doing otherwise would meant messing up with their religion, for example.
Others would gladly have nothing themselves as long as their neighbours were suffering just as badly.
Others would gladly let children die of starvation if in return they would have just a little bit more wealth!
If humanity doesn't have a common "global" motivator, then if becomes quite difficult to implement a global political solution either it is capitalism or communism.
There is a reason why the term "utopia" came from a work of fiction you know.
PhantomViper wrote:
I'm saying that better living conditions aren't the same motivators for some cultures as they are for ours. A large chunk of the human population of the world would be quite prepared to give up all of the "worlds profits" if doing otherwise would meant messing up with their religion, for example.
Others would gladly have nothing themselves as long as their neighbours were suffering just as badly.
Others would gladly let children die of starvation if in return they would have just a little bit more wealth!
If humanity doesn't have a common "global" motivator, then if becomes quite difficult to implement a global political solution either it is capitalism or communism.
There is a reason why the term "utopia" came from a work of fiction you know.
So anything that you didn't just make up on the spot? I dont see one instance there of those "have nots" openly resenting and even resorting to violence against the "have tos" when they try to help them and improve their way of living.
PhantomViper wrote:
I'm saying that better living conditions aren't the same motivators for some cultures as they are for ours. A large chunk of the human population of the world would be quite prepared to give up all of the "worlds profits" if doing otherwise would meant messing up with their religion, for example.
Others would gladly have nothing themselves as long as their neighbours were suffering just as badly.
Others would gladly let children die of starvation if in return they would have just a little bit more wealth!
If humanity doesn't have a common "global" motivator, then if becomes quite difficult to implement a global political solution either it is capitalism or communism.
There is a reason why the term "utopia" came from a work of fiction you know.
So anything that you didn't just make up on the spot? I dont see one instance there of those "have nots" openly resenting and even resorting to violence against the "have tos" when they try to help them and improve their way of living.
WTH? I try to have a reasonable argument and am instantly accused of lying and making things up?!
It is not that hard to find evidence of this type of behaviour, you really just have to open a newspaper to find reports of humanitarian aid teams being attacked by the populations that they are trying to help ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_humanitarian_workers ).
What, people die in warzones and from terrorist attacks and landmines? Well colour me surprised.
I didn't accuse you of lying, I accused you of making a statement without thinking it through and then trying to justify it by making other random points. Not once did you mention attacks on humanitarian workers, which would have backed up your original statement.
youngins 
