Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 10 months
Re: Irreconciable differences? [Re: Phred]
    #743042 - 07/13/02 01:06 AM (21 years, 7 months ago)

I've given up trying to understand your insistence of attaching moral declarations to sociological observations. But then, if you believe what you say here, it might be you who has the wacked moral sense:

"However, note the consistency, the essential morality, of Mom's warnings -- it is unsurprising that hoarding will be met with hoarding and violence with violence. Not only is it unsurprising, it is just, and fair."

For the record I want to say that I don't believe two wrongs, no matter how nearly identical, make a right.

Oh, and you got the wrong lady. It is far more likely that the comment originated with a wife of Louis XIV. But, your point still stands--there was no "spark" to the French Revolution. That was a glaring over-simplification of pinky-esque proportions, and I apologize.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: Irreconciable differences? [Re: hongomon]
    #743151 - 07/13/02 04:39 AM (21 years, 7 months ago)

hongomong writes:

I must say pinky's response to your post surprised me, considering the arguments he's raised in this thread.

The opinions I have expressed so far in this thread, in order, are:

1) The USA is far from being a Capitalist society.
2) Capitalism is no more harmful to the environment than any other political system, and less harmful than most.
3) The conflict in the Middle East is driven by tribalism and religious hatred, not by the urge to acquire oil.
4) The prosperity of the "have" nations does not come at the expense of the "have not" nations.
5) The "greed", "conspicuous consumption", and "failure to redistribute wealth" of the Western nations is not the impetus for terrorist attacks.
6) To say that someone (individual or nation) should be "unsurprised" to be attacked violently because they are not altruistic is to imply that it is wrong to hang on to what one has attained.

I don't know where he got the "honestly, through peaceful means" part here, certainly not from me.

Obviously not. You apparently don't believe it is possible to achieve prosperity honestly and through peaceful means.

I hold that the Western nations -- the "Free World" or "First World" or whatever you want to call it -- achieved prosperity through honest, non-violent means. You have yet to provide a single example of a dishonest, violent action the USA (for example) took which was responsible for its prosperity.

I've been explicit that I am making macro observations...

You weren't explicit at all in your original statement. Here it is again -- "And if the insistence that "I got it, it's mine, I'll share if it pleases me" continues, hell, how can we be surprised when very violent things happen to us, or our country?"

....juxtaposing a) the often very dishonest and often very violent practices of big businesses and their (our) governments...

I await examples of violent practices of big business (more current than strike-breakers in the 1920s) or of the "very dishonest" practices of "our" government.

...and b) an insular disassociation of the general public from those actions, to suggest a major factor in what causes, or exacerbates the violence we're seeing directed at us.

That's not how the statement I objected to was worded. It is plainly worded that if "we" are "greedy", we shouldn't be surprised to be violently attacked. Not that we or our governments are dishonest, or that we or our governments are violent, but that we are GREEDY. Further, it was not worded to "suggest" greed was a "major" or exacerbating factor, but rather the SOLE factor.

If you write something other than what you really mean to say, it is unsurprising people will react to what they READ rather than what is still in your head.

Yes, that simplified version is nonsense, but it is a mutant inbreed cousin of what I am driving at.

Then don't mention the mutant inbred cousin. SAY what you're driving at.

Note that my VERY FIRST reaction to the offending statement was to ask you if you wanted to rephrase it. Rather than do so, you got all huffy and indignant, insulted my ability to infer meaning, and accused me of being a turnip-head when I asked you if you acquired your possessions through dishonest and violent means.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
Re: Irreconciable differences? [Re: hongomon]
    #743165 - 07/13/02 04:58 AM (21 years, 7 months ago)

hongomon writes:

I've given up trying to understand your insistence of attaching moral declarations to sociological observations.

Are you saying the formulation of sociological principles is done while disregarding individual and/or cultural mores? I submit the understanding of morality (in all its flavors) is an integral and essential component of sociology, or at least any sociology which claims to have any real-world validity.

But then, if you believe what you say here, it might be you who has the wacked moral sense...

My morality says the initiation of physical force is wrong. It is wrong to physically attack an individual, or a nation, because it is "greedy", or because it is wasteful, or because it is arrogant.

For the record I want to say that I don't believe two wrongs, no matter how nearly identical, make a right.

So when Germany invaded Poland violently, it was wrong for the Poles to violently resist the invasion? When a burglar deprives someone of their property, it is wrong to deprive him of his freedom? When a "disgruntled former employee" is shooting up a MacDonald's, it's wrong for a police sniper to kill him?

Sure you don't want to rephrase that?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenugsarenice
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 06/04/00
Posts: 3,442
Loc: nowhere
Last seen: 18 years, 6 months
Re: Irreconciable differences? [Re: Phred]
    #743312 - 07/13/02 07:18 AM (21 years, 7 months ago)

"I hold that the Western nations -- the "Free World" or "First World" or whatever you want to call it -- achieved prosperity through honest, non-violent means. You have yet to provide a single example of a dishonest, violent action the USA (for example) took which was responsible for its prosperity. "

I disagree with alot of what you said. But for now I will only point out one small detail. A government must regulate the ecnonomy, in order to create "productrivity" or a regulated capitlism. It's just like fixed stockbroking. It drives up the amt. of taxes. Dole and Del Monte, are only daughter companies, and have many daugter companies themselves. It is obvious that these corporations "top" control important aspects of the government. Expecially our role in Guatemala. (one of the first planned liberations of Castro) I have never been, but I have seen regulated capitilism here on Oahu. So I can only guess what it is. It is like this. The government military claims half the land. The government itslef claims another 1/4. Dole and Del Monte take 1/8. Now, all the residential, commerical, must strive to fit in 1/8 of the land, with competing farmers. That doe'snt leave much room for competition does it? Believe it or not,, some Hawaiians were warriors, and fought against this. They were most definitely killed. I hope that helps you see where our government has used force to initate bank rolls. Leave with a quote from a spanish dissident of Dole. "Annanas Hurt."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The American Prosperity Forever Bill newuser1492 640 4 04/09/05 07:32 PM
by zappaisgod
* Consumers will save environment?
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 2,215 28 07/01/03 10:26 AM
by shakta
* Has your vote ever made a difference.
( 1 2 all )
Autonomous 1,508 33 09/23/03 07:37 PM
by monoamine
* How Are Canadians Different from Americans?
( 1 2 all )
RonoS 3,191 32 09/11/02 08:14 AM
by Innvertigo
* Activism in America (you can make a difference) Anonymous 445 7 02/23/03 11:27 AM
by TheCaptain
* What's the difference....... Anonymous 806 13 02/18/03 11:00 AM
by Skikid16
* A different slant.
( 1 2 3 all )
luvdemshrooms 1,125 51 07/16/03 11:56 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* One way to make a difference SoFarNorth 373 3 08/20/02 11:00 AM
by SoFarNorth

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,278 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.