Is Putin a creationist?

[TomS]

Putin says that God created us equal.


--
---Tom S.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 13/09/2013 14:30, TomS wrote:
> Putin says that God created us equal.
>

Would that be creationist as in every soul is a new creation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_(soul)


--
alias Ernest Major

[Darwin123]

Gee, Putin is religious?

[eridanus]

sure. I had seen videos in TV of Putin present in religious ceremonies
and making the sign of the cross. So far, the only prove I can have of
a person being religious is that he is present in some ceremony in a
church.
Other than this point, we cannot be sure who is religious or a humbug.
We need a detector to verify who really believe, or is simply a fraud.
Sometimes I think they are all frauds.
Eridanus

[John S. Wilkins]

eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, September 13, 2013 5:19:16 PM UTC+1, Darwin123 wrote:
> > On Friday, September 13, 2013 9:30:48 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> >
> > > Putin says that God created us equal.
> > >

> > > ---Tom S.
> >
> > Gee, Putin is religious?
>
> sure. I had seen videos in TV of Putin present in religious ceremonies
> and making the sign of the cross. So far, the only prove I can have of
> a person being religious is that he is present in some ceremony in a
> church.
> Other than this point, we cannot be sure who is religious or a humbug.
> We need a detector to verify who really believe, or is simply a fraud.
> Sometimes I think they are all frauds.
> Eridanus

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom
they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less
easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
- Aristotle, Politics.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:41:03 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins)
wrote in talk.origins:

>eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, September 13, 2013 5:19:16 PM UTC+1, Darwin123 wrote:
>> > On Friday, September 13, 2013 9:30:48 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
>> >
>> > > Putin says that God created us equal.
>> > >
>> > > ---Tom S.
>> >
>> > Gee, Putin is religious?
>>
>> sure. I had seen videos in TV of Putin present in religious ceremonies
>> and making the sign of the cross. So far, the only prove I can have of
>> a person being religious is that he is present in some ceremony in a
>> church.
>> Other than this point, we cannot be sure who is religious or a humbug.
>> We need a detector to verify who really believe, or is simply a fraud.
>> Sometimes I think they are all frauds.
>> Eridanus
>
>A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
>Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom
>they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less
>easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
>- Aristotle, Politics.

Must be a lot of tyrants in Texas.

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:41:03 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.

Wilkins) wrote:

>eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, September 13, 2013 5:19:16 PM UTC+1, Darwin123 wrote:
>> > On Friday, September 13, 2013 9:30:48 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
>> >
>> > > Putin says that God created us equal.
>> > >
>> > > ---Tom S.
>> >
>> > Gee, Putin is religious?
>>
>> sure. I had seen videos in TV of Putin present in religious ceremonies
>> and making the sign of the cross. So far, the only prove I can have of
>> a person being religious is that he is present in some ceremony in a
>> church.
>> Other than this point, we cannot be sure who is religious or a humbug.
>> We need a detector to verify who really believe, or is simply a fraud.
>> Sometimes I think they are all frauds.
>> Eridanus
>
>A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
>Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom
>they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less
>easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
>- Aristotle, Politics.

And some tyrants claim to be gods.

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 14 de septiembre de 2013 02:52:03 UTC+1, Free Lunch escribi�:

sure.
eri

[RonO]

On 9/13/2013 8:30 AM, TomS wrote:
> Putin says that God created us equal.
>
>

So does the declaration of independence.

Ron Okimoto

[Walter Bushell]

In article <e2d71dc7-24ca-4ef1...@googlegroups.com>,

eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> sure. I had seen videos in TV of Putin present in religious ceremonies
> and making the sign of the cross. So far, the only prove I can have of
> a person being religious is that he is present in some ceremony in a
> church.
> Other than this point, we cannot be sure who is religious or a humbug.
> We need a detector to verify who really believe, or is simply a fraud.
> Sometimes I think they are all frauds.
> Eridanus

You're thinking in terms of a unitary consistent self, which does not
exist in humans or if it does is very rare.

<http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2356#comic>

We know that gangsters and investment bankers even can be very pious.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Desertphile]

On 13 Sep 2013 06:30:48 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

> Putin says that God created us equal.

Except for homosexuals.


--
"What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale
response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that
others have made on our behalf." -- Professor Tsonis, University of Wisconsin

[TomS]

"On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:24:08 -0500, in article <l11h0s$ioi$1...@dont-email.me>,
RonO stated..."

I have been told by creationists that that famous statement in
the US Declaration of Independence shows that the Founding
Fathers were creationists.

However, there is a question of the scope of just what is being
said to be created.

AIUI, the Declaration of Independence is saying that each
individual "man" is created equal. So that the child of the
peasant is the equal of the child of the prince. (Ignoring, for
the moment, the status of the child of the slave.)

AIUI, Putin was saying that each state is equal. That the USA
is not "exceptional" among states.

And creationism is saying that the abstraction "mankind" is
created. (I'm not sure what they might think "mankind" is equal
to, but then thinking things through is not a common feature
of creationism.)

It's a matter, I think, of synecdoche (totum pro parte or pars
pro toto).


--
---Tom S.

[James Beck]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:31:56 -0600, Desertphile
<deser...@nospam.org> wrote:

>On 13 Sep 2013 06:30:48 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> Putin says that God created us equal.
>
>Except for homosexuals.

...or women, ethnic minorities, migrant workers, Jews, Muslims,
gypsies, tramps, and thieves.

[Mitchell Coffey]

No: in Putin's Russia thieves are more equal than others.

Mitchell

[jillery]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:46:53 -0600, James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Sounds like something Cher sang about.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <rh4939ttcih54ldgc...@4ax.com>,

Watt? No exception for banksters?

[James Beck]

On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:51:50 -0400, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <rh4939ttcih54ldgc...@4ax.com>,
> James Beck <jdbec...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:31:56 -0600, Desertphile
>> <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 13 Sep 2013 06:30:48 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Putin says that God created us equal.
>> >
>> >Except for homosexuals.
>>
>> ...or women, ethnic minorities, migrant workers, Jews, Muslims,
>> gypsies, tramps, and thieves.
>
>
>Watt? No exception for banksters?

Bankers are usually safe almost everywhere.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Saturday, 14 September 2013 08:26:09 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:
> El s�bado, 14 de septiembre de 2013 02:52:03 UTC+1, Free Lunch escribi�:
> > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:41:03 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins)
> > wrote in talk.origins:

> > >A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
> > >Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom
> > >they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less
> > >easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
> >
> > >- Aristotle, Politics.
> >
> > Must be a lot of tyrants in Texas.
>
> sure.
>
> eri

Every politician in the United States has Jesus on his or her side.
Which must make elections confusing for everyone, including Jesus.
But they aren't necessarily tyrants.

A tyrant loves the church, and the church loves a tyrant - as you've
pointed out before; you've seen it done.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <0564d3bf-0b4d-4be1...@googlegroups.com>,

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 14 September 2013 08:26:09 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:

> > El sábado, 14 de septiembre de 2013 02:52:03 UTC+1, Free Lunch escribió:
> > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 11:41:03 +1000, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins)
> > > wrote in talk.origins:
> > > >A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
> > > >Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom
> > > >they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less
> > > >easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side.
> > >
> > > >- Aristotle, Politics.
> > >
> > > Must be a lot of tyrants in Texas.
> >
> > sure.
> >
> > eri
>
> Every politician in the United States has Jesus on his or her side.

There are a few Jewish politicians, you know, even fairly observant.
And the few Muslim politicians' Jesus would not be recognized as Jesus
by Christians, and I think most Christians would think the Mormon
Jesus is different from theirs.

> Which must make elections confusing for everyone, including Jesus.
> But they aren't necessarily tyrants.
>
> A tyrant loves the church, and the church loves a tyrant - as you've
> pointed out before; you've seen it done.

[eridanus]

The declaration of Independence of the US said all men are created
equal, but they were thinking of the white people of some social
class.
Blacks and poor without land, even women, were not included in
the declaration of equality.

Putin is saying the same thing. We are all equal as white Russians
of some higher class. The rest must be untermensch.
At present Putin is desperate for the people of high class to make
babies, for the new religion of Russian is nationalism.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

it depends of which sort of thieves are you thinking. High class
thieves are respectable everywhere.

Eridanus

[Steven L.]

On 9/13/2013 9:41 AM, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

> On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
>> Putin says that God created us equal.
>>
>>
>

> I'll bet he never spouted that tripe when he was head of the KGB.

No, back then he spouted Marxist-Leninist tripe instead. And he didn't
believe that stuff either.

It's like the old joke about the teacher being asked if he believed the
earth was round or flat: "I can teach it round, or I can teach it flat."


> I doubt he's a creationist...Putin, like all pols. / dictators are
> opportunists.


--
Steven L.

[Steven L.]

On 9/13/2013 9:30 AM, TomS wrote:
> Putin says that God created us equal.

No. Read a transcript again.

He claimed that God made *nations* equal.

None of the Abrahamic religions believe that. Because it's obviously false.

It was a cynical attempt to try to undercut America's superpower status.

Sorry, Putin, but not only isn't Russia equal to America, it isn't even
equal to China.


--
Steven L.

[jillery]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:15:58 -0400, "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 9/13/2013 9:41 AM, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
>> On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
>>> Putin says that God created us equal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'll bet he never spouted that tripe when he was head of the KGB.
>
>No, back then he spouted Marxist-Leninist tripe instead. And he didn't
>believe that stuff either.
>
>It's like the old joke about the teacher being asked if he believed the
>earth was round or flat: "I can teach it round, or I can teach it flat."

Similar to a good saleman and a good lawyer, I suppose a good teacher
can teach anything to anybody.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:28:10 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote
in talk.origins:

Must we leave out the "good" accountants? "How much do you want it to
be?"

[jillery]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 18:57:23 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

I knew I left some group out. I guess I'm not a good politician.
Oops, there's another one *-)

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:57:21 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote

in talk.origins:

>On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 18:57:23 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:28:10 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>in talk.origins:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 19:15:58 -0400, "Steven L."
>>><sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 9/13/2013 9:41 AM, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
>>>>> On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
>>>>>> Putin says that God created us equal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll bet he never spouted that tripe when he was head of the KGB.
>>>>
>>>>No, back then he spouted Marxist-Leninist tripe instead. And he didn't
>>>>believe that stuff either.
>>>>
>>>>It's like the old joke about the teacher being asked if he believed the
>>>>earth was round or flat: "I can teach it round, or I can teach it flat."
>>>
>>>
>>>Similar to a good saleman and a good lawyer, I suppose a good teacher
>>>can teach anything to anybody.
>>
>>Must we leave out the "good" accountants? "How much do you want it to
>>be?"
>
>
>I knew I left some group out. I guess I'm not a good politician.
>Oops, there's another one *-)

Pandering is a fine art and takes craft.

[Dale]

On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
> Putin says that God created us equal.
>
>

I think the USA says we are endowed by unalienable rights by their Creator

--
Dale

[John S. Wilkins]

I think the US Constitution says that. I don't think that is the
official position of the US itself.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:44:48 +1000, in article
<1l9auju.br0bcg1n24nz9N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John S. Wilkins stated..."

>
>Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
>> > Putin says that God created us equal.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I think the USA says we are endowed by unalienable rights by their Creator
>
>I think the US Constitution says that. I don't think that is the
>official position of the US itself.

It's from the US Declaration of Independence, which AIUI does not
have any standing in law in the USA.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness."

This has been pointed to by certain creationists as an indication
that the "founding fathers" were creationists. However, it should
be clear that they are talking about the creation of *individuals*,
not *species* (or "kinds" or any other collectives or abstractions).


--
---Tom S.

[alias Ernest Major]

On 16/09/2013 10:44, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
>>> Putin says that God created us equal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think the USA says we are endowed by unalienable rights by their Creator
>
> I think the US Constitution says that. I don't think that is the
> official position of the US itself.
>

That's from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. (But
the mistake is regularly made by Americans as well.)

--
alias Ernest Major

[chris thompson]

Hell, he knew it was one of the two. That's probably more than can be said about most 'Merkins.

Chris

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1l9auju.br0bcg1n24nz9N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
> > > Putin says that God created us equal.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think the USA says we are endowed by unalienable rights by their Creator
>
> I think the US Constitution says that. I don't think that is the
> official position of the US itself.

S/Constitution/Declaration of Independence/

What goes down in a declaration of revolt doesn't go down in a
document establishing a government.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Monday, September 16, 2013 8:31:59 AM UTC-4, chris thompson wrote:
<snip>

> Hell, he knew it was one of the two. That's probably more than can be said about most 'Merkins.
>
>
>
> Chris

Is that the 'Wig' party?

[Michael Siemon]

In article <1l9auju.br0bcg1n24nz9N%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
> > > Putin says that God created us equal.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think the USA says we are endowed by unalienable rights by their Creator
>
> I think the US Constitution says that. I don't think that is the
> official position of the US itself.

The line is from the Declaration of Indepenence, which has no legal
status in defining the US government.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:44:48 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):

>Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
>> > Putin says that God created us equal.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I think the USA says we are endowed by unalienable rights by their Creator
>
>I think the US Constitution says that.

Actually, it's the Declaration of Independence; the
Constitution is about government structure, internal
governance procedures and external relations, not philosophy
per se (sorry 'bout that, but you get my meaning).

> I don't think that is the
>official position of the US itself.

Probably not, given the ban on endorsement of religion,
which *is* in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, despite
claims by some morons that "There ain't no sech clause!".

Although rhetoric by politicians may well include comments
relating to "the Creator" or "God's law".
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:35:34 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by alias Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.ukl>:

Most Americans haven't read the Constitution *or* the
Declaration since high school, if then. But I suspect most
Brits are on an equal footing with the Magna Carta.

[Paul J Gans]

That is true, and yet, and yet we declared independence on the
principle that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness."

So I'd assume that those same unalienable rights are still self-evident
today.

But I don't find a lot of evidence for my view.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 9/16/2013 5:44 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 09/13/2013 09:30 AM, TomS wrote:
>>> Putin says that God created us equal.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think the USA says we are endowed by unalienable rights by their Creator
>
> I think the US Constitution says that. I don't think that is the
> official position of the US itself.
>

Declaration of Independence. Which means it isn't even part of the law.

Mitchell Coffey

[Paul J Gans]

As I've posted, either we hold these rights to be self-evident,
in which case they are self-evident and the law can't ignore them.
Or they are no longer self-evident, in which case we owe King
George an apology.

[eridanus]

this principles of equality were the principles of warrior-landowners.
The were not meant to be applied to common people without any economic
grasp. More or less, this was the meaning of "all men". These guys were
not thinking of the servants laboring their states, or the black slaves
if some of them had at that time.
Eridanus

[znam...@gmail.com]

kl. 18:46:53 UTC+2 lørdag 14. september 2013 skrev James Beck følgende:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:31:56 -0600, Desertphile
> <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>

> >On 13 Sep 2013 06:30:48 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Putin says that God created us equal.
> >

> >Except for homosexuals.
>
> ...or women, ethnic minorities, migrant workers, Jews, Muslims,
> gypsies, tramps, and thieves.

Are you saying that women, ethinc minorities, migrant workers, jews, muslims, gypsies, tramps and thieves are not humans? It clearly states that God created everyone equal. Now, if a person wants to become a thief, muslim etc. that does not change the fact that the person is equal. Homos are not born gay so no God does not create them

[Earle Jones27]

*
Lawyer: "We have our principles!
And if you don't like out principles....
....we have some other principles."

earle
*

[James Beck]

No. I implied that Putin is a broad-spectrum hypocrite.

[jillery]

That reminds me of a scene from "Paper Moon" Small-time con man Moses
Pray is trying to get away from his illegitimate daughter Addie
Loggins:

Moses Pray: And stop standing around here checking on me! You don't
have to worry. I ain't about to leave some poor little child stranded
in the middle of nowhere. I've got scruples too, ya know. You know
what that is... scruples?
Addie Loggins: No, I don't know what it is, but if you got 'em, it's a
sure bet they belong to somebody else!

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[jillery]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 11:06:21 -0800 (PST), znam...@gmail.com wrote:

You mean like Ted Haggard?

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

you mean it is a good politician?
eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

> equal. Homos are not born gay so no God does not create them.

The speech of whatever that said, "All men are created equal was speaking
rhetorically. His words were not meant to be taken literally. All those
that heard or read this phrase, knew that it was bullshit. The phrase were
not even dedicated to the politicians that were to sign this paper...
for politicians know pretty well that other politicians were rather dull;
so the phrase was even invalid for all the members of the congress, or
the assembly they were in. All members are made by god equal refers to
guy that wrote the phrase, and his cronies.

How do you know that homos are not born gay?
Perhaps they have a chip that activates at some age and made him/her gay.

Eri

[TomS]

"On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 11:06:21 -0800 (PST), in article
<55a92786-fc67-4027...@googlegroups.com>, znam...@gmail.com
stated..."

Please clarify. What is that "it" that clearly says that God created everyone
equal. If you are referring to the US Declaration of Independence, I don't
think that Putin had that in mind. Does "it" also say that God doesn't
create certain people, so they don't count? Like that 19th century hymn to
creation put it:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.


--
La trahison des images, René Magritte ("Ceci n'est pas un pipe")
"the map is not the territory", Alfred Korzbyski
Design is not production.
---Tom S.

[jillery]

You don't say who you're referring to when you say "his words". Your
phrase "sign this paper" suggest you're thinking of the Declaration of
Independence. If so, then Jefferson meant those words literally, but
you're not applying the context, that all men are to be treated
equally under the law, and to be provided equal opportunity. That
Jefferson applied his words to propertied white males only doesn't
make his words bullshit, but is a reflection of his 18th-century
prejudices.

The Magna Carta originally applied to only Barons and the King, but
over time its principles covered more of the populace through
Parliament, even at the expense of a civil war. The principles of the
Declaration went through a similar evolution and trials by fire.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

the idea that all men, not women, are created equal... as an idea
in the mind of some people. But a lot of them, do not believe it
even in this century and in US.
Not only they think they are not been created equal, but some people
believe they are in their rights to treat some humans as untermensch.
Eri

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 3 November 2014 14:36:18 UTC, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> the idea that all men, not women, are created equal... as an idea
> in the mind of some people. But a lot of them, do not believe it
> even in this century and in US.
> Not only they think they are not been created equal, but some people
> believe they are in their rights to treat some humans as untermensch.
> Eri

I do not like the word "equal" in this context,
because to me, that sounds like a statement that
we are all identically similar, and of course
we are not. But I am not sure what else to say,
or to do. It would be less satisfactory if they
said something like "equal in the sight of God".
It is still well meant, but I don't want be obliged
to have God in it.

[jillery]

Since you want to focus on what people believe, as opposed to
principles of government, yes, everybody sometimes act as if they're
entitled to special treatment, that the rules don't apply to them,
either because of their birth, or because they occupy a privileged
place in society, or just because. It's very hard for people to shake
off the illusion that the Universe is centered on them. I know,
because I'm one of them. And so are you.

A necessary corollary to special privileges for yourself is fewer
privileges for others. Slavery and castes are this illusion in
extremis. It gets even worse when one is surrounded by sycophants who
enable the illusion.

[VoiceOfReason]

Perhaps "All men are created equal" refers to them being equal at birth. Afterwards of course, individual situations and economic backgrounds take over.

Note that in Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration, there was a section where he criticized the King for "foisting slavery on us," or words to that effect. This from a man who owned slaves, and dallied with at least some of them. (That section was dropped in the final version.)

> How do you know that homos are not born gay?
> Perhaps they have a chip that activates at some age and made him/her gay.

I think that is medical science's view.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 11:06:21 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by znam...@gmail.com:

>kl. 18:46:53 UTC+2 lørdag 14. september 2013 skrev James Beck følgende:

>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:31:56 -0600, Desertphile
>> <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:

>> >On 13 Sep 2013 06:30:48 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Putin says that God created us equal.

>> >Except for homosexuals.

>> ...or women, ethnic minorities, migrant workers, Jews, Muslims,
>> gypsies, tramps, and thieves.

>Are you saying that women, ethinc minorities, migrant workers, jews, muslims, gypsies, tramps and thieves are not humans?

No, that would be what Putin believes.

> It clearly states that God created everyone equal. Now, if a person wants to become a thief, muslim etc. that does not change the fact that the person is equal. Homos are not born gay so no God does not create them

Take it up with Putin; the exceptions noted are ones he
claims, as should be obvious from the above posts.

[Michael James]

You would not be alone. John Adams disliked the phrase
"all men are created equal" precisely for that reason.
He argued to change it to something more like "all men
equally created before the law". I like and admire John Adams
but in this I feel he was probably on the wrong side of history.
The poetry of the phrase and its semantic imprecision have been
a good thing, IMO. It certainly helped Dr. King some 180 years
later.

mike

--
mrj...@swcp.com http://www.swcp.com/~mrjames/
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in
numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in
numbers your knowledge is a meagre and unsatisfactory kind" - Lord Kelvin

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

I suppose those words of the declaration of Independence
(were they on this document or in another?) were a sort
of rhetorical speech. Humans of high class are prone to that
say these things.
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

the principles of government are perhaps more illusory than the common
folks. I see these principles as those of evangelicals that present a
banner written that says, "Jesus loves ya".

In the question of being delusional about our own intelligence... well,
you must be right. We are all delusional more or less. Specially when
one is sure of knowing certain questions while others are wrong for they
ignore the important questions we know.

Eri

[James Beck]

That depends on what you mean by 'good.'

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

I have not a precise idea. Have you?
eri

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:33:21 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo

Delusion is different from illusion.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Both can be cousins, or brothers.
eri

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 03:25:00 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo

Yes, they are related. No, they are not synonyms. Delusion refers to
a belief of unreality. Illusion refers an external condition that
isn't what it seems.

To say "the principles of government are delusory" and "We are
illusional" mean very different things than what you wrote above.

Of course, you could look these words up yourself. I know you can. Or
you can continue to believe you know best, but that would be
delusional.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Good could be an adjective or predicate (following WD Ross). Good could
refer as instrumental to means or be an end in itself. As GE Moore would
hold, the intrinsic good as an end is not analyzable. To assert
otherwise is a fallacy, such as equating "good" with pleasure, desire,
well-being, nature...

A "good" (adjectival) politician is a manipulative, prudent, and
expedient type. This is a transvaluation in the sense that good is bad.
This is alluded in the great street philosophers Run DMC's "Pied Piper"
("not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good") or LL Cool J's "I'm Bad."
The by any means necessary approach is oft attributed to Nicolo
Machiavelli as exemplified by archetypal bad boy Cesare Borgia, but is
more recently captured by the prudently amoral Weltanschauung of
Realpolitik.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

OMG
I had never presumed to know best than other people. My only degree
is diplomat ignorant. And my most conspicuous sin is to presume that
it is difficult to understand some piece of reality.
It is not impossible, it is just difficult. Specially for me.

For other people is different. They are a lot optimistic because
they had earned some degrees in this or that matter.
When I write something here, I do not speak ex-cathedra. I am just making
some exercises of English composition.

Eri

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 07:38:40 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo

So do you understand the difference or not?

[James Beck]

It's quite a leap from acknowledging that Moore thought the Good
indefinable to claiming that he would have accepted equating 'good'
with 'Machiavellian' with respect to politics. Either Moore or Ross
would say that commits the naturalistic fallacy. That is, both would
say that your second paragraph violates the conditions you established
in your first paragraph.

I think either would have been inclined to change the question and ask
what makes a moral politician, where 'moral' means more than the sum
of selfish or Machiavellian individual outcomes. Although both Moore
and Ross rejected idealism, to the extent that Realpolitik is a subset
of realism, either would say that Realpolitik cannot be free of moral
content.

Where Moore would say that a moral politician works to build a moral
society, in rejecting consequentialism Ross (deontologist) would
require only that the politician's acts correspond to his seven pro
tanto duties: fidelity; reparation; gratitude; non-maleficence;
justice; beneficence; and self-improvement.

In that context, for Moore, Weltanschauung is not amoral. It is
suboptimally moral in the same sense that favoring the interest of one
selfish individual over another leads to collective outcomes the same
or worse than the best available. By extension, for Moore it should
follow that a moral nation works to build a moral world. I think that
for Moore, that opprobrium would extend to say, Republican
gerrymandering because it semi-permanently favors one set of interests
over another.

I think Ross would have rejected a consequentialist moral view like
Realpolitik along with any claim that it is free of moral content.
Even so, he would say for example that our pro tanto duties of
non-maleficence, justice, and beneficence mean that we have an
*actual* duty not to, say, torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

As a utilitarian:
-I would agree with either Moore or Ross that the Good is indefinable.
-Both are wrong in rejecting consequentialism.
-Also, Ross seems to be saying that the Good is indefinable, but let's
define it prima facie anyway.
-The prima facie duties of Ross' deontology imply an unsatisfiable
moral absolute. It seems to me that that leads to either to idealism
or to moral relativism, and so must be wrong.

Although the contingent nature of utilitarian actions gives them a
consequentially indeterminate value, I am satisfied that my most moral
alternative is to follow my own interest, provided that I carefully
consider what can be known about its dependence on the interests of
others, all in the context of the physical world. Deviations from the
full information 'best' action probabalistically lead to positive or
negative outcomes from which I have the opportunity to learn.

In this framework acting in accordance with full information is the
moral absolute, so I'm not concerned with moral relativism per se.
Available subsets of informed experience will produce different
answers.

Applying the same yardstick to someone like Putin, I suppose that a
'good' politician acts in accordance with the fullest available set of
information and learns from mistakes. In his case 'yardstick' may
exaggerate the length of the tool I consider necessary to meaure his
progress, but YMMV.

Continuing in this lighter vein, since traditional wish-fulfillment
assigns the role of punishing those insulated from from consequences,
maybe Putin will end up in the Hell of Dominant Gay Wrestlers.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Sorry, my transition from 1st to 2nd paragraph wasn't clear enough. I
had gone into a an entirely different mode of thought, riffing a bit
still off what I recall of Ross making a distinction of good as
adjective vs. predicate. When these guys start rambling on about "good"
I must admit my brain starts to hurt and go into a bit of shutdown.

The emphasis in my second paragraph was more along the lines of how
values shift, which could be a Nietzschean sort of trsnsvaluation, but I
would need to don my biohazard suit and re-read him sometime not very
soon. But suffice it to say the shift in good to bad was well underway
before Run DMC's song ("Peter Piper" my bad). The anti-hero has had a
long run in American culture (see "Rebel Without a Cause" or "Grease" or
wrestling heels).

> I think either would have been inclined to change the question and ask
> what makes a moral politician, where 'moral' means more than the sum
> of selfish or Machiavellian individual outcomes. Although both Moore
> and Ross rejected idealism, to the extent that Realpolitik is a subset
> of realism, either would say that Realpolitik cannot be free of moral
> content.

Yeah I was emphasizing the negative connotations of Realpolitik as
embodied in my mind by Kissinger and Nixon. Probably not a fair
representation, but I was drawing constrasts as I time travelled back to
Renaissance Florence.

And my use of the adjective "expedient" above as I switch to dark art
Machiavellian mode was mostly inspired by watching the series 24. Sure
Bauer felt duty-bound to protect the Homeland, but he went off-piste and
cut many ethical corners along the way. That storyline happened to
coincide with the revelations of Abu Ghraib, to great effect for the
conservative agenda IMO. If people are given their moral cues from
entertainment, 24 was ready-made for the Cheney programme.

> Where Moore would say that a moral politician works to build a moral
> society, in rejecting consequentialism Ross (deontologist) would
> require only that the politician's acts correspond to his seven pro
> tanto duties: fidelity; reparation; gratitude; non-maleficence;
> justice; beneficence; and self-improvement.

That list is perhaps my favorite thing about Ross. And non-maleficence
is the Prime Directive ("do no harm"). That kinda takes the wind out of
Kant's sails wrt the categorical imperative and as I explained to some
people a couple days ago, makes it so that in some limited cases the
most moral thing to do is lie, such as when protecting Jews from Nazis
or runaway slaves from their would be captors along the rails of the
"underground railroad".

> In that context, for Moore, Weltanschauung is not amoral. It is
> suboptimally moral in the same sense that favoring the interest of one
> selfish individual over another leads to collective outcomes the same
> or worse than the best available. By extension, for Moore it should
> follow that a moral nation works to build a moral world. I think that
> for Moore, that opprobrium would extend to say, Republican
> gerrymandering because it semi-permanently favors one set of interests
> over another.
>
> I think Ross would have rejected a consequentialist moral view like
> Realpolitik along with any claim that it is free of moral content.
> Even so, he would say for example that our pro tanto duties of
> non-maleficence, justice, and beneficence mean that we have an
> *actual* duty not to, say, torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

Great point.

I worry that Alfred in "The Dark Knight" hit it on the head (wrt
maleficence): "Some men just want to watch the world burn." We've seen
some of them pop in and get banned on t.o. I wonder if that's what
motivates some more extreme Tea Partiers on the right and anarchists on
the left. There do seem to be an abundance of miscreants attracted to
the fringes.

> As a utilitarian:
> -I would agree with either Moore or Ross that the Good is indefinable.
> -Both are wrong in rejecting consequentialism.
> -Also, Ross seems to be saying that the Good is indefinable, but let's
> define it prima facie anyway.
> -The prima facie duties of Ross' deontology imply an unsatisfiable
> moral absolute. It seems to me that that leads to either to idealism
> or to moral relativism, and so must be wrong.

His array of prima facie duties are IMO superior to Kant's overly
generalized deontology of the *sans phrase* categorical imperative. And
I think Ross allows wiggle room to sneak some consequentialist "greater
good" considerations into this array, but would need to re-read him.

> Although the contingent nature of utilitarian actions gives them a
> consequentially indeterminate value, I am satisfied that my most moral
> alternative is to follow my own interest, provided that I carefully
> consider what can be known about its dependence on the interests of
> others, all in the context of the physical world. Deviations from the
> full information 'best' action probabalistically lead to positive or
> negative outcomes from which I have the opportunity to learn.

Yeah, with all the high falutin' idealist talk of acting for others
almost exclusively, we are kinda wired for prudence first. One could
follow Smith's "invisible hand" assumption that self-interest can lead
to beneficial societal incomes, but I don't believe this holds in the
real world.

> In this framework acting in accordance with full information is the
> moral absolute, so I'm not concerned with moral relativism per se.
> Available subsets of informed experience will produce different
> answers.

Aha, but as we are grossly uninformed and downright ignorant and more on
this line of thought, we are often exploited by information asymmetry,
which is one failure of the market. There are free market solutions to
remedy that, such as Carfax. But still. I am a moral fallibist along the
lines of Soros being an epistemological fallibist. Also why I still hold
to Hume's is-ought. Facts are important, but not always sufficient to
break easily through Harris's firewall.

> Applying the same yardstick to someone like Putin, I suppose that a
> 'good' politician acts in accordance with the fullest available set of
> information and learns from mistakes. In his case 'yardstick' may
> exaggerate the length of the tool I consider necessary to meaure his
> progress, but YMMV.

He was in the right place at right time after St. Petersburg and being
handpicked by Boris. Yeah he cut some corners with how he treated media
and petro oligarchs. But Russia did go from being totally in the crapper
in 1997-98 to having one of the better debt ratios in the world. Better
than ours. And they have a reserve fund. Sure Russia's revenue base is
oil/gas heavy with Gazprom and Rosneft and likely to buckle if fuel
prices go down. But hey, we can't brag about much economically in the US
(hi China...the check's in the mail). And after the recent election
results we have voted ourselves further toward a Putin-like oligarchy.
At least we have effective term-limits on our executive, which makes the
crucial difference, though we have dynasties as might be seen if Hillary
and Jeb are the choices in 2016. And as our recent Ebola czar shows,
staffers hang around way too long :-)

Now if we shift from economic over to human rights issues and freedom
issues, Russia is falling fast. We ain't perfect, but have enough room
to express dissatisfaction. But as beating war drums works for us, so it
does for them too.

> Continuing in this lighter vein, since traditional wish-fulfillment
> assigns the role of punishing those insulated from from consequences,
> maybe Putin will end up in the Hell of Dominant Gay Wrestlers.

With never-ending theme music by Pussy Riot.

Thanks for a very thoughtful and thought provoking reply.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:33:23 -0500, in article
<BPydnebI6J9578DJ...@giganews.com>, *Hemidactylus* stated..."
[...snip...]

>long run in American culture (see "Rebel Without a Cause" or "Grease" or
>wrestling heels).

[...snip...]

Or wrestling flats?

Is this starting another pun cascade about footwear?


--
God is not a demiurge or a magician - Pope Francis
---Tom S.

[jillery]

On 7 Nov 2014 21:57:34 -0800, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>"On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:33:23 -0500, in article
><BPydnebI6J9578DJ...@giganews.com>, *Hemidactylus* stated..."
>[...snip...]
>>long run in American culture (see "Rebel Without a Cause" or "Grease" or
>>wrestling heels).
>[...snip...]
>
>Or wrestling flats?
>
>Is this starting another pun cascade about footwear?

You sound Prada yourself.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El jueves, 6 de noviembre de 2014 15:21:09 UTC, *Hemidactylus* escribió:
> On 11/03/2014 07:38 PM, James Beck wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:01:01 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
> > <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> El domingo, 2 de noviembre de 2014 21:31:19 UTC, James Beck escribió:
> >>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 11:06:21 -0800 (PST), znam...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> kl. 18:46:53 UTC+2 lørdag 14. september 2013 skrev James Beck følgende:
> >>>>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:31:56 -0600, Desertphile
> >>>>> <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 13 Sep 2013 06:30:48 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Putin says that God created us equal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Except for homosexuals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...or women, ethnic minorities, migrant workers, Jews, Muslims,
> >>>>> gypsies, tramps, and thieves.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you saying that women, ethinc minorities, migrant workers, jews, muslims, gypsies, tramps and thieves are not humans? It clearly states that God created everyone equal. Now, if a person wants to become a thief, muslim etc. that does not change the fact that the person is equal. Homos are not born gay so no God does not create them
> >>>
> >>> No. I implied that Putin is a broad-spectrum hypocrite.
> >>
> >> you mean it is a good politician?
> >
> > That depends on what you mean by 'good.'
>
> Good could be an adjective or predicate (following WD Ross). Good could
> refer as instrumental to means or be an end in itself. As GE Moore would
> hold, the intrinsic good as an end is not analyzable. To assert
> otherwise is a fallacy, such as equating "good" with pleasure, desire,
> well-being, nature...

Or not. It all depends on the amount, or the magnitude. Some pleasure is
necessary for the brain. An excess of it can be catastrophic, as it is
prove by the coca, amphetamines, and excess eating. By having frequent
discharges of neurotransmitter in the nucleus accumbens, you are wrecking
the very thing. But if a person lacks some pleasures for a long period
of time, he could become... depressed? bored?
The good is a rare combination of different hormones; some amount of
glucose in the blood, a good state of the adrenal glands, etc.
If someone has a depressed state of its adrenal glands, if would look,
and perhaps he would be depressed; of suffering an endocrine syndrome.

To define good, is rather challenging. Good for what? Goof for how long?
There is a proverb in Spanish that say, "there is not a good, nor ill,
that would last hundred years." Some cynic added to the proverb,
"there is not a body that could bear it."

> A "good" (adjectival) politician is a manipulative, prudent, and
> expedient type. This is a transvaluation in the sense that good is bad.
> This is alluded in the great street philosophers Run DMC's "Pied Piper"
> ("not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good") or LL Cool J's "I'm Bad."
> The by any means necessary approach is oft attributed to Nicolo
> Machiavelli as exemplified by archetypal bad boy Cesare Borgia, but is
> more recently captured by the prudently amoral Weltanschauung of
> Realpolitik.

As for the manipulative politician... could exist any that is good and
not is manipulative? Can a politician say some inconvenient truths?
I suppose a good politician has to tell as many lies as much as truths
he keep closed in his brain.

Anyone thinks that a transparent politician is a good thing?
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Do you?
Eri

[TomS]

"On Sat, 08 Nov 2014 01:56:54 -0500, in article
<1kfr5a5mbt9cvjeca...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

Should I take it to Pravda?

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

this is quite a long speech and rather abstract. The quid of the problem
is to analyze situations in relation not only to consequences, but in
relation to other goods or ills as well. For any good whatever must have
some sort of kinship with other goods, or other ills, all tied together.

It must exist a sort of entangled weaving of different goods, with
different ills, its cost, etc. I mean you can not fight the Nazis,
that were epitome of a great ill, without becoming oneself an ill
as well. If you need to fight an adversary you become de fact another
fighter, and an adversary as well.

Let us consider the salaries in GM during the 60's. They were good for
they were high, but high salaries implied very strict conditions of work
that could not be bearable for very long periods. On the other hand,
high prices, were not only tied to hard conditions of work and discipline,
but they were also linked to higher prices of the cars. And thus, they
were begetting the seeds of more automatism and thus... more unemployment.
That for not to mention the competition of foreign countries that started
to used more advanced cybernetic tools. With this it started the dismissed
of the American empire.
Then, there is some contradiction in the appraisal of "good" as an
abstraction. We had been able though the use of machines to increase
the amount of food produced, and very cheap as well, but the result of
this was a faster increase of population in the planet.

Then, we had been wise by using fossil fuels that drive our machines, but
we had established the next step for a looming catastrophe; the
exhaustion of the miraculous fuels. Then this is like the proverbial
snake biting his tail with its own poison.

Eri

[Stuart]

On Friday, September 13, 2013 1:30:48 PM UTC, TomS wrote:
> Putin says that God created us equal.
>
>

> --
> ---Tom S.

But some of us are more equal than others.

Stuart

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El sábado, 8 de noviembre de 2014 01:36:08 UTC, *Hemidactylus* escribió:
> On 11/07/2014 07:09 PM, James Beck wrote:
> > On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:18:33 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/03/2014 07:38 PM, James Beck wrote:

> >>> snip

> > It's quite a leap from acknowledging that Moore thought the Good
> > indefinable to claiming that he would have accepted equating 'good'
> > with 'Machiavellian' with respect to politics. Either Moore or Ross
> > would say that commits the naturalistic fallacy. That is, both would
> > say that your second paragraph violates the conditions you established
> > in your first paragraph.
>
> Sorry, my transition from 1st to 2nd paragraph wasn't clear enough. I
> had gone into a an entirely different mode of thought, riffing a bit
> still off what I recall of Ross making a distinction of good as
> adjective vs. predicate.

Sorry, Hemidactylus.
I would had loved if you had said this in plain English. I had troubles
specially with the word "predicate".

I was forced to consult the Oxford the word predicate and it says:
1) what is predicated, what is affirmed or denied of the subject by
means of copula (mortal as, in all men are mortal)
2) (Gram.) What is said of the subject, including the copula (e.g.
are mortal, in precedent example), or other verb of its adjuncts.
That is, a total mess.
I do not understand what is the difference of "good" used as
adjective or predicate. I got a little puzzled. Perhaps you meant,
I am not sure, "good" as noun or adjective.

John is good, or simply the "good" without farther attachments.
I am wondering if it is possible to speak more clearly. For the
more entangled are our phrases the more incomprehensible
they are.

I suppose the quid of the word "good" is the real meaning of it;
just in case it would have a meaning.
Perhaps, Oxford would help me.
"Good" a. and adv. Damned, it is very long! I foresee some
problems.
1) having the right qualities, satisfactory, adequate, entertainment
suited for some medium.
2) Commendable
3) Right, proper, expedient.
4) Morally excellent, virtuous.
5) Kind of benevolent.
6) (in a child) Well behaved, not given trouble.
7) Gratifying, agreeable, favorable, advantageous, beneficial,
wholesome.
8) Adapted to a purpose, efficient, suitable, competent.

It has more meanings, but I am tired already.
All I can see from reading the Oxford is that good is something
with some limits, or related to some comparisons. Then, the
concept itself is limited by the varied circumstances in which
the adjective or adverb could be applied.

The use of "good" as a noun in the Oxford is coherent with
the previous definitions.

When something is "good", is it in relation to what? and for how
long? or how often... a good can occur to remain such?
The question is... once "good" is defined, do it remains "good"
forever or it would change with the seasons? or with other
circumstances? Also there is the question of... if a "good" can
suffer some lapse, or some form of extinction. Something was
good in the past but just now... it is not anymore.
Can we reply to all these questions?

> When these guys start rambling on about "good"
> I must admit my brain starts to hurt and go into a bit of shutdown.

I agree with you here.

> The emphasis in my second paragraph was more along the lines of how

> values shift, which could be a Nietzschean sort of transvaluation, but I

> would need to don my biohazard suit and re-read him sometime not very
> soon. But suffice it to say the shift in good to bad was well underway
> before Run DMC's song ("Peter Piper" my bad). The anti-hero has had a
> long run in American culture (see "Rebel Without a Cause" or "Grease" or
> wrestling heels).

Ok, I tried once Nietzsche and I had to abandon all hope. But this
allusion to the Peter Piper is outside my comprehension.
There is the question if an antihero is good or not. Anyway in case
we had decided that is good, or bad, the quid is why exists the
behavior of the antihero.
Of the movie "Grease" I watched a few fragment in the TV. I do not loved
it because I was not an antihero, and never went to dances. But as
the movie was great in the Box Office, it means it was pleasant to
the young people. Then it was good. But older people do not loved
this movie, for it was some prove of their own failure as parents
who tried to domesticate his children. Then, for parents the movie
was not good; that is, it was bad.

Let's suppose the antihero is the product of a bad conditioned behavior.
In this case, the antihero is bad. Unless by a previous conjecture...
any conditioned behavior must be declared bad, or not good.

But if a bad or a good behavior is always the result of a previous
conditioning, then the conditioning itself is not good not bad.
It is the "way the conditioning is performed" that makes it good
or bad. For a conditioning can give good or bad results, depending
our understanding of the rules; or if we what we are doing or not.

> > I think either would have been inclined to change the question and ask
> > what makes a moral politician, where 'moral' means more than the sum
> > of selfish or Machiavellian individual outcomes. Although both Moore
> > and Ross rejected idealism, to the extent that Realpolitik is a subset
> > of realism, either would say that Realpolitik cannot be free of moral
> > content.
>
> Yeah I was emphasizing the negative connotations of Realpolitik as
> embodied in my mind by Kissinger and Nixon. Probably not a fair

> representation, but I was drawing contrasts as I time traveled back to
> Renaissance Florence.
I exempt Nixon of all blame, assuming he was a some sort of mental
retarded. Then, if I were to define Kissinger as guilty or innocent...
I had to speculate that Kissinger was limited in what he could advice
in foreign politics, for it existed some limits, that not only Nixon
and the Republican party shared... I mean, they had some filters on
the input of their brains, so it do not exist a real freedom on what
you could had advised to Nixon, or even any other politician,
Republican or Democrat as well.
Then, once it is clear in mind of Kissinger what he can advice and
what he cannot... the dice are thrown. He wants to earn his life
and by accepting to be a minister of Nixon... we can think he
tried to advice the best for the US in those questions of Foreign
Politics.
There is a lot that can be argued about if it was good or bad the
war of Viet Nam. Basically, the wars are determined by the
brains of the leaders, and what they pretended to achieved.
This is not so easy. Perhaps, the leaders only are serving their
own agenda as a small group of politicians. To achieve its
aims, the use their own population... as something expandable,
or fungible. Suppose Viet Nam was at that time overpopulated
and that was the root of all their problems. Not precisely the
need of being independent. Then, the war per se was good.
Or it was only bad for those that got mutilated, or for the
orphans that the war caused, etc.
Watched from the perspective of a soldier... forced to be
in a war, the good was trying to save their own ass in that
war the best they could. So, if they had to obey the orders
of their officers and corporals to increase his probabilities
of survival, that was what they were doing.
Then, it is difficult to analyze this... for some people
appreciate much some abstractions as "the independence".
Someone told me one day that "to wage a war for the
independence of our nation was the greatest thing; and
all the dead a war would had caused, was a good 'investment'."
Well, he do not explained it that long. He simply said,
that "to earn the independence we must pay with our
lives and all sacrifices were justified."

> And my use of the adjective "expedient" above as I switch to dark art
> Machiavellian mode was mostly inspired by watching the series 24. Sure
> Bauer felt duty-bound to protect the Homeland, but he went off-piste and
> cut many ethical corners along the way. That storyline happened to
> coincide with the revelations of Abu Ghraib, to great effect for the
> conservative agenda IMO. If people are given their moral cues from
> entertainment, 24 was ready-made for the Cheney programme.

I suppose Machiavelli was speaking about the means to save
their own ass for a Prince. Times were very rich in warfare at
that time, and all princes were fearing for their lives and fortunes.
What Machiavelli was writing were some advices, naked or
all hypocrite rhetoric, to any prince trying to save his own ass.
The book was in fact a critic of politics and hypocrisy. Most
princes had a clear mind about what they could to do.
The book was scandalous at the time, for the language of politics
was always full of lies, like at present. So Niccolo was breaking
the taboo of omerta. No one should speak openly about those
matters. The RCC put The Prince in the list of prohibited
books.

Eri

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 04:15:38 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo

>> >OMG
>> >I had never presumed to know best than other people. My only degree
>> >is diplomat ignorant. And my most conspicuous sin is to presume that
>> >it is difficult to understand some piece of reality.
>> >It is not impossible, it is just difficult. Specially for me.
>> >
>> >For other people is different. They are a lot optimistic because
>> >they had earned some degrees in this or that matter.
>> >When I write something here, I do not speak ex-cathedra. I am just making
>> >some exercises of English composition.
>>
>>
>> So do you understand the difference or not?
>
>Do you?

Apparently you disagree with what I have already written about the
difference, and about how you used the words incorrectly and out of
context. You seem to think you know better than me, and so you don't
have to explain yourself.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

I honestly confess that I do not understand what are you talking of.
I have the vague idea that you were commenting something about politics.
I vaguely remember that you said something like if politics are as
they are at present, or if there exists a minimal possibility that
politics would be... "as you think it should."

But so much was lost in my reading that I was unable to reply a
single word as a commentary.
How politics should be? I have not the faintest idea. I am just on
the initial phase of trying to understand how the gears of politics
are working. If politics were like a clock, I must understand how
this clock is working.
In reason of your passion, asking me some tricky questions that
surpass my intelligence on politics, I suppose you can enlighten
me.
Then, it should me who had to ask you and not you who would ask me.
See you later.
Eri

ignorant.


If you have any interest in knowing what I think of your argument
try to present it again. If not, we can forget the whole thing.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El sábado, 8 de noviembre de 2014 17:16:02 UTC, jillery escribió:

sorry, Jillery.
Apparently we have had some problems of understanding because I wrote
this.
Here it goes.

"The principles of government are perhaps more illusory than the common

"folks. I see these principles as those of evangelicals that present a
"banner written that says, "Jesus loves ya".

"In the question of being delusional about our own intelligence... well,
"you must be right. We are all delusional more or less. Specially when
"one is sure of knowing certain questions while others are wrong for they
"ignore the important questions we know.

Have you any problems with the first paragraph or with the second?

The Oxford says about illusory, Deceptive (sp. as regards value or
content) Having the character of an illusion.
In the second paragraph I used the word "delusional" and the Oxford
says, it does not say anything. It does not come up this adjective.
But it could serve well to consult the word "delusion".
Delusion: 1) Imposing or being imposed on; a false impression, or
opinion, spec. as symptom or form of madness.

Then, delusional must be an adjective referring to delusion.

Do you have any problems with this arguments?

If I said "we can be delusional" about our own intelligence...
is there any problem? We can have a false impression or opinion
on something. We can even have "delusions of grandeur", hallucinatory
exaggeration of one's personality or status. Whence "delusional".

I got it, you were thinking about the phrase,

"Specially when
"one is sure of knowing certain questions while others are wrong for they
"ignore the important questions we know.

I was not speaking about me. I was speaking about everybody. "Everybody
(almost) seems to be sure to know important questions while others ignore
them." Is this phrase offensive? More or less we are all inspired by
the "holy ghost" and presume to know a pile of important things others
ignore.

Any more problems? I am going to sleep.

Eri






Eri

[James Beck]

On Fri, 07 Nov 2014 20:33:23 -0500, *Hemidactylus*

<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/07/2014 07:09 PM, James Beck wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:18:33 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/03/2014 07:38 PM, James Beck wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:01:01 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
>>>> <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> El domingo, 2 de noviembre de 2014 21:31:19 UTC, James Beck escribió:
>>>>>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 11:06:21 -0800 (PST), znam...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kl. 18:46:53 UTC+2 lørdag 14. september 2013 skrev James Beck følgende:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:31:56 -0600, Desertphile
>>>>>>>> <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13 Sep 2013 06:30:48 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Yeah I was emphasizing the negative connotations of Realpolitik as
>embodied in my mind by Kissinger and Nixon. Probably not a fair
>representation, but I was drawing constrasts as I time travelled back to
>Renaissance Florence.

Several friends of mine who formerly admired Nixon were dismayed by
George Will's recent expose of Nixon's treason. Since he was in bed
with the mafia vis-a-vis Cuba as well it's clear that he was
ruthlessly self-interested. However, self-aggrandizement only matters
to Realpolitik to the extent that it conforms to reality. Except in
accepting Mao's invitation to visit China, Nixon spent his
administration in continual political retreat.

>And my use of the adjective "expedient" above as I switch to dark art
>Machiavellian mode was mostly inspired by watching the series 24. Sure
>Bauer felt duty-bound to protect the Homeland, but he went off-piste and
>cut many ethical corners along the way. That storyline happened to
>coincide with the revelations of Abu Ghraib, to great effect for the
>conservative agenda IMO. If people are given their moral cues from
>entertainment, 24 was ready-made for the Cheney programme.

Angry people consume angry entertainments. New Yorkers were (and many
still are) accepting of torture as a means to an end. The jail system
here is no stranger to torture, though most people wouldn't class it
as such.

>> Where Moore would say that a moral politician works to build a moral
>> society, in rejecting consequentialism Ross (deontologist) would
>> require only that the politician's acts correspond to his seven pro
>> tanto duties: fidelity; reparation; gratitude; non-maleficence;
>> justice; beneficence; and self-improvement.
>
>That list is perhaps my favorite thing about Ross. And non-maleficence
>is the Prime Directive ("do no harm"). That kinda takes the wind out of
>Kant's sails wrt the categorical imperative and as I explained to some
>people a couple days ago, makes it so that in some limited cases the
>most moral thing to do is lie, such as when protecting Jews from Nazis
>or runaway slaves from their would be captors along the rails of the
>"underground railroad".

[snip]

>I worry that Alfred in "The Dark Knight" hit it on the head (wrt
>maleficence): "Some men just want to watch the world burn." We've seen
>some of them pop in and get banned on t.o. I wonder if that's what
>motivates some more extreme Tea Partiers on the right and anarchists on
>the left. There do seem to be an abundance of miscreants attracted to
>the fringes.

Extremists think that you can burn the world to save it. They aren't
necessarily wrong; people resist change. The problem is that they are
certain that the change they propose is for the better and they reject
claims to the contrary regardless of how many dissenting voices they
hear.

>> As a utilitarian:
>> -I would agree with either Moore or Ross that the Good is indefinable.
>> -Both are wrong in rejecting consequentialism.
>> -Also, Ross seems to be saying that the Good is indefinable, but let's
>> define it prima facie anyway.
>> -The prima facie duties of Ross' deontology imply an unsatisfiable
>> moral absolute. It seems to me that that leads to either to idealism
>> or to moral relativism, and so must be wrong.
>
>His array of prima facie duties are IMO superior to Kant's overly
>generalized deontology of the *sans phrase* categorical imperative. And
>I think Ross allows wiggle room to sneak some consequentialist "greater
>good" considerations into this array, but would need to re-read him.

I would say that he more than sneaks it in.

>> Although the contingent nature of utilitarian actions gives them a
>> consequentially indeterminate value, I am satisfied that my most moral
>> alternative is to follow my own interest, provided that I carefully
>> consider what can be known about its dependence on the interests of
>> others, all in the context of the physical world. Deviations from the
>> full information 'best' action probabalistically lead to positive or
>> negative outcomes from which I have the opportunity to learn.
>
>Yeah, with all the high falutin' idealist talk of acting for others
>almost exclusively, we are kinda wired for prudence first. One could
>follow Smith's "invisible hand" assumption that self-interest can lead
>to beneficial societal incomes, but I don't believe this holds in the
>real world.

Kenneth Arrow showed that under very general conditions no rank
ordering system of three or more alternatives leads to a complete,
transitive ordering for a group provided that the group doesn't have a
dictator. That is, a group cannot generally achieve a social welfare
maximum just by letting each individual vote his/her self-interest.
That does not mean that self-interest cannot lead to beneficial
societal outcomes. It does mean that not everyone will be equally
happy with the outcome achieved and that the group as a whole could
have done better. It holds beautifully in the real world unless you
can propose a mutually agreeable alternative decision rule. For
example, see the net present value rule.

What Adam Smith told people who feared the effects of international
trade was that circumstances would conspire to keep most investment
domestic. That also works in the real world. The problem is that it's
not without the empirical reality of domestic hardship. That is, the
Libertarians like to pretend that the hand holds a soothing balm
rather than a whip.

On the other hand, Adam Smith never did say that self-interest
magically makes everything wonderful. What he did say is that
well-functioning markets depend on Justice and that we are entitled to
regulate them to that end. Some Libertarians like to pretend that
Moral Sentiments, WoN, and Jurisprudence are different books even
though he was working on them all together and following the same
basic outline as his mentor. It's also a very good idea to remember
that Adam Smith's first series of professional lectures were on
natural theology. The Scots like Adam Smith and they have been much
less likely to cherry-pick than Tea Party Libertarians in the US.
Moral Sentiments is even more of a slog than WoN, but I think it's
more worthwhile.

>> In this framework acting in accordance with full information is the
>> moral absolute, so I'm not concerned with moral relativism per se.
>> Available subsets of informed experience will produce different
>> answers.
>
>Aha, but as we are grossly uninformed and downright ignorant and more on
>this line of thought, we are often exploited by information asymmetry,
>which is one failure of the market. There are free market solutions to
>remedy that, such as Carfax. But still. I am a moral fallibist along the
>lines of Soros being an epistemological fallibist. Also why I still hold
>to Hume's is-ought. Facts are important, but not always sufficient to
>break easily through Harris's firewall.

We are not as mis/dis/uninformed as all that. Besides, frequent, wide
deviations from the best informed choice give you lots of
opportunities to learn. If the world spanks you often enough and you
have the capacity to learn from your mistakes the bounds on your
rationality will change, even if you don't hold fallabalism.

>> Applying the same yardstick to someone like Putin, I suppose that a
>> 'good' politician acts in accordance with the fullest available set of
>> information and learns from mistakes. In his case 'yardstick' may
>> exaggerate the length of the tool I consider necessary to meaure his
>> progress, but YMMV.
>
>He was in the right place at right time after St. Petersburg and being
>handpicked by Boris. Yeah he cut some corners with how he treated media
>and petro oligarchs. But Russia did go from being totally in the crapper
>in 1997-98 to having one of the better debt ratios in the world. Better
>than ours. And they have a reserve fund.

They defaulted on their debt. Twice: 1991 and 1998. They borrowed
money and didn't pay it back, stole a bunch from the IMF and World
Bank, and demanded repayment under thinly veiled threats of violence
from everyone who owed them money. Naturally their debt ratios are
better than ours.

>Sure Russia's revenue base is
>oil/gas heavy with Gazprom and Rosneft and likely to buckle if fuel
>prices go down. But hey, we can't brag about much economically in the US
>(hi China...the check's in the mail).

Even viewed in the light least favorable our economy is magnificent.
China's time of troubles will come again. It already has once in my
lifetime. China's demographics are awful. Having used IMF credits in
1981 and 1986, they're still subject to IMF review. Their last one was
a rather fearful thing.

>And after the recent election
>results we have voted ourselves further toward a Putin-like oligarchy.

Our secret police has always been better funded than theirs.

>At least we have effective term-limits on our executive, which makes the
>crucial difference, though we have dynasties as might be seen if Hillary
>and Jeb are the choices in 2016. And as our recent Ebola czar shows,
>staffers hang around way too long :-)

I don't fear either one. Neither will change anything very much.

>Now if we shift from economic over to human rights issues and freedom
>issues, Russia is falling fast.

Not sure what this means. The US is already by far the best place I've
ever been with regard to human rights.

>We ain't perfect, but have enough room
>to express dissatisfaction.

Don't count on it. 'Fire in a crowded theater' was expressly intended
to stifle dissent. Under less pleasant economic conditions our system
is thoroughly repressive. When it comes right down to it, other than
noting that many of our small towns have their own armor, how
different is Ferguson, MO from Tian An Men Square?

>But as beating war drums works for us, so it
>does for them too.

Doesn't follow. Countries as a whole vary significantly in their
response to calls for war.

In our case, too many of our aggressive manipulators manage to dodge
their felonies and they have some nice, soft clay to work on.
Americans are highly risk averse, much more so than say, the
Europeans, who are aggressive gamblers, but are also apparently much
less prone to risk seeking on average. It's fairly easy to terrify
people in the US and a big fraction of the population suffers from
poor impulse control.

The Brits, Canadians, Australians, and Japanese also seem to tolerate
risk better than us. We're much more reliably responsive to jingoism
than any of them. Nihonjinron (the Japanese version of American
Exceptionalism) and a bad sense of humor keep the Japanese a bit
dangerous, though the currently dominant political group thinks the
old (Meiji/Confucian) ways deviate from social reality.

The Chinese have seen it all and they have a marvelous sense of humor
that lets them laugh at everything. As a result historically it's hard
to get them moving. The Germans, Greeks, and Argentinians are
xenophobes. The Greeks are prone to deceit and envy, but they're more
likely to scheme in private. The Russians would rather lie than fight.
The Indonesians have recently shown a willingness to annihilate their
opponents one bomb at a time. Pakistan's elected political authority
doesn't control the military or the intelligence apparatus. And so
on... Realpolitik consider all of that and much more of course.

>> Continuing in this lighter vein, since traditional wish-fulfillment
>> assigns the role of punishing those insulated from from consequences,
>> maybe Putin will end up in the Hell of Dominant Gay Wrestlers.
>
>With never-ending theme music by Pussy Riot.

"Putin Will Teach You How To Love" maybe, but that female fight club
video is pretty hot for HDGW. Just add mud or Jell-o.

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 15:09:19 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
<leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I honestly confess that I do not understand what are you talking of.

No need to confess that. It was apparent to me from your first post.

>I have the vague idea that you were commenting something about politics.
>I vaguely remember that you said something like if politics are as
>they are at present, or if there exists a minimal possibility that
>politics would be... "as you think it should."

Of course I neither said nor implied any such thing. Nor are your
comments relevant to anything I posted. In short, your replies are
just a bunch of nonsense. That is what I expect from you, and you
don't disappoint.

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 15:41:05 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo

>sorry, Jillery.


I could tell the sincerity of your sorrow from your first reply.

>Apparently we have had some problems of understanding because I wrote
>this.
>Here it goes.
>
>"The principles of government are perhaps more illusory than the common
>"folks. I see these principles as those of evangelicals that present a
>"banner written that says, "Jesus loves ya".
>
>"In the question of being delusional about our own intelligence... well,
>"you must be right. We are all delusional more or less. Specially when
>"one is sure of knowing certain questions while others are wrong for they
>"ignore the important questions we know.
>
>Have you any problems with the first paragraph or with the second?

Why not both?

>The Oxford says about illusory, Deceptive (sp. as regards value or
>content) Having the character of an illusion.
>In the second paragraph I used the word "delusional" and the Oxford
>says, it does not say anything. It does not come up this adjective.
>But it could serve well to consult the word "delusion".
>Delusion: 1) Imposing or being imposed on; a false impression, or
>opinion, spec. as symptom or form of madness.
>
>Then, delusional must be an adjective referring to delusion.
>
>Do you have any problems with this arguments?

Other than the fact that you don't compare the meanings of "illusion"
with "delusion", or explain why you continue to conflate them, I see
no problems at all. Why do you ask?

>If I said "we can be delusional" about our own intelligence...
>is there any problem? We can have a false impression or opinion
>on something. We can even have "delusions of grandeur", hallucinatory
>exaggeration of one's personality or status. Whence "delusional".

Please explain what being delusional of our own intelligence has to do
with the principles of government being illusory. Alternately, please
explain what any of your comments have to do with the use of
"equality" in the Declaration of Independence. You can choose either
one; I don't want to overtax you.

>I got it, you were thinking about the phrase,
>"Specially when
>"one is sure of knowing certain questions while others are wrong for they
>"ignore the important questions we know.

Actually, I gave that phrase all the attention it deserved the first
time I read it. At this point its account is overdrawn.

>I was not speaking about me. I was speaking about everybody.

I acknowledge that it's your habit to exclude yourself from your many
generalizations about "everybody". I suppose you could have been
created ex nihilo, or hatched on another planet, but I don't see any
point in dwelling on such possibilities.

>"Everybody
>(almost) seems to be sure to know important questions while others ignore
>them." Is this phrase offensive? More or less we are all inspired by
>the "holy ghost" and presume to know a pile of important things others
>ignore.
>
>Any more problems? I am going to sleep.

Were you awake? It's so hard to tell.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Oh, I am very grateful of your kindness.
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

All the field is yours.
eri

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Nov 2014 01:52:22 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo

>All the field is yours.

I take that as a "no".

[Walter Bushell]

In article <0j9f5ala8q1v6497e...@4ax.com>,

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since you want to focus on what people believe, as opposed to
> principles of government, yes, everybody sometimes act as if they're
> entitled to special treatment, that the rules don't apply to them,
> either because of their birth, or because they occupy a privileged
> place in society, or just because. It's very hard for people to shake
> off the illusion that the Universe is centered on them. I know,
> because I'm one of them. And so are you.

Both you and I are the center of the Universe, just like everybody
else.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[jillery]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:50:34 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <0j9f5ala8q1v6497e...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since you want to focus on what people believe, as opposed to
>> principles of government, yes, everybody sometimes act as if they're
>> entitled to special treatment, that the rules don't apply to them,
>> either because of their birth, or because they occupy a privileged
>> place in society, or just because. It's very hard for people to shake
>> off the illusion that the Universe is centered on them. I know,
>> because I'm one of them. And so are you.
>
>Both you and I are the center of the Universe, just like everybody
>else.

What's the point to specieal priviledges if everybody has them?

[Earle Jones27]

On 2014-11-10 14:50:34 +0000, Walter Bushell said:

> In article <0j9f5ala8q1v6497e...@4ax.com>,
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since you want to focus on what people believe, as opposed to
>> principles of government, yes, everybody sometimes act as if they're
>> entitled to special treatment, that the rules don't apply to them,
>> either because of their birth, or because they occupy a privileged
>> place in society, or just because. It's very hard for people to shake
>> off the illusion that the Universe is centered on them. I know,
>> because I'm one of them. And so are you.
>
> Both you and I are the center of the Universe, just like everybody
> else.

*
All I want is just a little more than my fair share.

earle
*

[James Beck]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 06:04:55 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo

<leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El sábado, 8 de noviembre de 2014 00:11:03 UTC, James Beck escribió:
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:18:33 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On 11/03/2014 07:38 PM, James Beck wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:01:01 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
>> >> <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> El domingo, 2 de noviembre de 2014 21:31:19 UTC, James Beck escribió:
>> >>>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 11:06:21 -0800 (PST), znam...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> kl. 18:46:53 UTC+2 lørdag 14. september 2013 skrev James Beck følgende:
>> >>>>>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:31:56 -0600, Desertphile
>> >>>>>> <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 13 Sep 2013 06:30:48 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

[snip]

>It must exist a sort of entangled weaving of different goods, with
>different ills, its cost, etc. I mean you can not fight the Nazis,
>that were epitome of a great ill, without becoming oneself an ill
>as well. If you need to fight an adversary you become de fact another
>fighter, and an adversary as well.

Why can't you? The essence of utilitarian political compromise has
never extended to the claim that if you want to screw me, I have to
take it. Even the Christians, who may have turned the other cheek when
they were weak, stopped doing that when they were strong enough to
defend themselves.

>Let us consider the salaries in GM during the 60's. They were good for
>they were high, but high salaries implied very strict conditions of work
>that could not be bearable for very long periods. On the other hand,
>high prices, were not only tied to hard conditions of work and discipline,
>but they were also linked to higher prices of the cars. And thus, they
>were begetting the seeds of more automatism and thus... more unemployment.

Nonsense. GM employes a quarter of a million people and sells more
cars now than they did 20 years ago. Fewer of each are in the US, but
that is a different issue.

>That for not to mention the competition of foreign countries that started
>to used more advanced cybernetic tools. With this it started the dismissed
>of the American empire.

The US never was very imperial in the usual sense, but don't count on
'dismissal' of the American 'empire' any time soon. The current state
of the world is more of a super-oligopoly than an empire anyway.

[snip]

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

I was simply analyzing concepts. To go to a war is not an initiative
of private individuals but of the political leaders. Some particulars
could had be recruited for a war a lot before it has started, but this
is another question. As individuals it is others that decide that I
should go to a war.
And about Christianity they passed from putting their other cheek, to
being the ones slapping the face of their enemies or to kill them.

Individuals do not need to worry much about the wars; for it is
others that decide about them. I am not making a speech against wars
in general or about fighting the Nazis in particular. They deserved
what occurred to them.

>
> >Let us consider the salaries in GM during the 60's. They were good for
> >they were high, but high salaries implied very strict conditions of work
> >that could not be bearable for very long periods. On the other hand,
> >high prices, were not only tied to hard conditions of work and discipline,
> >but they were also linked to higher prices of the cars. And thus, they
> >were begetting the seeds of more automatism and thus... more unemployment.
>
> Nonsense. GM employes a quarter of a million people and sells more
> cars now than they did 20 years ago. Fewer of each are in the US, but
> that is a different issue.

> >That for not to mention the competition of foreign countries that started
> >to used more advanced cybernetic tools. With this it started the dismissed
> >of the American empire.
>
> The US never was very imperial in the usual sense, but don't count on
> 'dismissal' of the American 'empire' any time soon. The current state
> of the world is more of a super-oligopoly than an empire anyway.
>

That's true. The main question is how long would last this new global
empire. Oil would not last forever.
eri

[Desertphile]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 05:54:37 -0800 (PST), Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Friday, September 13, 2013 1:30:48 PM UTC, TomS wrote:

> > Putin says that God created us equal.

> But some of us are more equal than others.

I see that Tony Abbot likes Putin without his shirt on. So much so that
Abbott wants to tackle Putin. Ah--- politics!

> Stuart


--
If the scientific consensus is that Earth isn't flat, why
are there still astronomers?

[James Beck]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:04:32 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo

That sounds like something most people would worry about very much,
rather like being mauled by a bear.

>I am not making a speech against wars
>in general or about fighting the Nazis in particular. They deserved
>what occurred to them.

Did they? Speaking of poking bears ... It is fairly easy to argue that
the Germans were provoked by bullies accustomed to having everything
their own way. Paraphrasing E.H. Carr, at some point ideology is
indistiguishable from idealism.

>> >Let us consider the salaries in GM during the 60's. They were good for
>> >they were high, but high salaries implied very strict conditions of work
>> >that could not be bearable for very long periods. On the other hand,
>> >high prices, were not only tied to hard conditions of work and discipline,
>> >but they were also linked to higher prices of the cars. And thus, they
>> >were begetting the seeds of more automatism and thus... more unemployment.
>>
>> Nonsense. GM employes a quarter of a million people and sells more
>> cars now than they did 20 years ago. Fewer of each are in the US, but
>> that is a different issue.
>
>> >That for not to mention the competition of foreign countries that started
>> >to used more advanced cybernetic tools. With this it started the dismissed
>> >of the American empire.
>>
>> The US never was very imperial in the usual sense, but don't count on
>> 'dismissal' of the American 'empire' any time soon. The current state
>> of the world is more of a super-oligopoly than an empire anyway.
>>
>
>That's true. The main question is how long would last this new global
>empire. Oil would not last forever.

Oil was cheap and abundant at the time but it was not the only choice.
For example, Henry Ford wanted an alcohol-based economy in the early
20th century. Augustin Mouchot proposed a predominantly solar-based
economy in the mid-to-late 1800s. The fossil fuel industry survives
because it offers convenience at a low direct cost. The dynamics of
indirect costs and benefits are among the better understood market
failures of utilitarian economic systems.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

Oh, I love this sort of arguments. The story of these couple of wars,
WWI and WWII must had probably the same cause. I would even dare, but
I am not an historian, to speculate if the Franco-Prussian war had also
a common ancestor with the next two wars in which Germany was involved.
But my idea about wars are not meant to blame anyone in particular.
The causes can be varied and combined, make small differences along
the time. It is rather complex to check what is the reason of some
wars. Take by example the American war of Independence. Was the real
cause some taxes on the tea? Or it was something else? After a war
so dear, the American people had to pay a lot of taxes to cancel
the debts they had because of the war. Perhaps, the real cause of
the were not the taxes on the tea. But if the American landowners
were ruling the country, they could profit for themselves of all
the taxes the American people would had to pay. I suppose the war
of independence was influenced by the desires of independence of
the great landowners and not because they were paying taxes to the
British government.

Other complex war, was the American Civil War. What was the real
cause of this war? I suppose it never had said, but some educated
bullshit instead of the true reason. I had heard or read something
about this war. It seems that I had got some hints on this war.
But I am not sure how much I can figure the cause of this war.

Ordinary people are passive victims of all wars. It is the leaders
and their little armies (the officers mostly) that drive all the
business of the wars. Common people had not other option than
obey their masters. Once you are in this role, you must not think
with your own brain, but you must follow the official doctrine that
could explain roughly the causes of the war.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El viernes, 14 de noviembre de 2014 20:00:43 UTC, James Beck escribió:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:04:32 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
> <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > snip

> >That's true. The main question is how long would last this new global
> >empire. Oil would not last forever.
>
> Oil was cheap and abundant at the time but it was not the only choice.
> For example, Henry Ford wanted an alcohol-based economy in the early
> 20th century. Augustin Mouchot proposed a predominantly solar-based
> economy in the mid-to-late 1800s. The fossil fuel industry survives
> because it offers convenience at a low direct cost. The dynamics of
> indirect costs and benefits are among the better understood market
> failures of utilitarian economic systems.

I forgot to reply to this paragraph.
Well, this collection of phrases give us way to work quite a lot for
several weeks, perhaps months, and more probably years to fix what
can be the base of energy for the next era. It could be hydrogen fusion
or it can be other. But most of these concepts of the alcohol, or the
solar energy, are debatable. For a source of energy to be good, we
must not invest more energy on it that it would give out.

Some sources are not so obvious would give positive results.
Eri

[James Beck]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:14:37 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo

<leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El viernes, 14 de noviembre de 2014 20:00:43 UTC, James Beck escribió:
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:04:32 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
>> <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >El martes, 11 de noviembre de 2014 21:10:51 UTC, James Beck escribió:
>> >> On Sat, 8 Nov 2014 06:04:55 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
>> >> <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >El sábado, 8 de noviembre de 2014 00:11:03 UTC, James Beck escribió:
>> >> >> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 10:18:33 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
>> >> >> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On 11/03/2014 07:38 PM, James Beck wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:01:01 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
>> >> >> >> <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> El domingo, 2 de noviembre de 2014 21:31:19 UTC, James Beck escribió:
>> >> >> >>>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 11:06:21 -0800 (PST), znam...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> kl. 18:46:53 UTC+2 lørdag 14. september 2013 skrev James Beck følgende:
>> >> >> >>>>>> On Sat, 14 Sep 2013 06:31:56 -0600, Desertphile
>> >> >> >>>>>> <deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> On 13 Sep 2013 06:30:48 -0700, TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Take by example the American war of Independence. Was the real
>cause some taxes on the tea? Or it was something else? After a war
>so dear, the American people had to pay a lot of taxes to cancel
>the debts they had because of the war. Perhaps, the real cause of
>the were not the taxes on the tea. But if the American landowners
>were ruling the country, they could profit for themselves of all
>the taxes the American people would had to pay. I suppose the war
>of independence was influenced by the desires of independence of
>the great landowners and not because they were paying taxes to the
>British government.

Since it created an exploitive monopoly for the Parliament-controlled
East India Company and effectively lowered the social status of the
colonists, the cumulative effects of the Bubble Act (1741) are the
more likely culprit.

>Other complex war, was the American Civil War. What was the real
>cause of this war?

Cold weather combined with a wave of immigration and the southern
slaveowners' use of slaves to perform skilled labor were the immediate
cause. The abandonment of the 6% voter franchise of the Federalist
period in favor of Jacksonian democracy made something much more like
a majority the arbiter of discontent.

[snip]

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 11/14/2014 8:30 PM, James Beck wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2014 13:14:37 -0800 (PST), Leopoldo Perdomo
> <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> Other complex war, was the American Civil War. What was the real
>> cause of this war?
>
> Cold weather combined with a wave of immigration and the southern
> slaveowners' use of slaves to perform skilled labor were the immediate
> cause. The abandonment of the 6% voter franchise of the Federalist
> period in favor of Jacksonian democracy made something much more like
> a majority the arbiter of discontent.

I think it was Judah Benjamin and the Queen of England.

Mitchell Coffey

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Mitchell Coffey <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in news:m482me$jff$1
@dont-email.me:

Don't be silly. Everyone knows it was Pius IX. Did you think it was just a
*coincidence* that John Surratt went to Rome and became a Papal Zouave?

(The reptoids were involved, but they only played a minor role. Also,
Andrew Johnson, who was really the Comte de St Germain.)
--
S.O.P.

[James Beck]

Oh no. You mean it really is always the Jews who cause these things?
It's kind of mean to blame the Queen for the weather.

[Mitchell Coffey]

You figured it out. I was repeating the Lyrouche-ite theory of the cause
of the Civil War.

> It's kind of mean to blame the Queen for the weather.

OK, I really want to know: please explain your theory of the cause of
the Civil War.

Mitchell Coffey

[James Beck]

'There is scarce, perhaps, to be found anywhere in Europe, a more
learned, decent, independent, and respectable set of men than the
greater part of the Presbyterian clergy of Holland, Geneva,
Switzerland, and Scotland.'On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:57:49 -0500,

People who work for wages always eventually object to slavery for the
same reason that 'nihon gata fukushi shakai' eventually deviates from
social reality. The timing of the event is however, usually its least
interesting aspect.