that is not true. people do not always try to dominate each other. you are being a pessimist in this regard. you cant say that ANYONE does ANYTHING ALL the time and be right. that's foolish to just assume because you think so... you don't know, because things like that cannot be known...
What is the Solution
- Auteur de la discussion itsscience
- Date de début
relax buddy its a generalization
im not saying that everyone at all times is trying to dominate you
if i have to explain myself; i was just saying that, you can use human history as a reference, GENERALLY people want power whether they know it or not, theres an instinctual drive to dominate
i myself am not a very dominant minded person, i dont want to force anything on anyone
and im a human
im not saying that everyone at all times is trying to dominate you
if i have to explain myself; i was just saying that, you can use human history as a reference, GENERALLY people want power whether they know it or not, theres an instinctual drive to dominate
i myself am not a very dominant minded person, i dont want to force anything on anyone
and im a human
itsscience
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 7/10/10
- Messages
- 560
The fact that you guys are debating potential flaws in the human race, in the context of this thread, is a good thing because any system of government that is to replace the current systems (by the term "government" I'm referring to some as yet determined regulations for human interaction that is the focus of this thread) must include devices to counteract the flaws within our nature that lead to the corruption of governments and the oppression of rights.
One of the problems with the current systems of government is that the right people for the jobs in government aren't in those jobs. We have many extremely incompetent people drafting new legislation almost daily and the vast majority of that new legislation is knee jerk reactions by politicians that are aimed at appeasing some perceived desire in the populace, usually a desire that is propogated and perpetuated by the media (e.g. "we need tougher laws for crimes"). Why do the politicians feel the need so strongly to appease these perceived concerns of the masses? Politics for votes - If we are seen in the media to be making laws that respond to the perceived needs that the media are presenting then more people are likely to vote for us next time, that way we'll make more money for ourselves. THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY BIG PROBLEMS WITH REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTS.
If we have any hope of changing things for good and on a significant scale, we must be able to design an alternate system for ensuring the harmonious interaction of mankind. People have done it before, Marx had a fantastic (albeit idealistic and somewhat unrealistic) crack at it and it even got put into production in one of the biggest countries in the world.
I've just sat here for twenty minutes thinking my way through a practical example to write down here and any way I look at it I come up with flaws. I need bigger brains than mine.
One of the problems with the current systems of government is that the right people for the jobs in government aren't in those jobs. We have many extremely incompetent people drafting new legislation almost daily and the vast majority of that new legislation is knee jerk reactions by politicians that are aimed at appeasing some perceived desire in the populace, usually a desire that is propogated and perpetuated by the media (e.g. "we need tougher laws for crimes"). Why do the politicians feel the need so strongly to appease these perceived concerns of the masses? Politics for votes - If we are seen in the media to be making laws that respond to the perceived needs that the media are presenting then more people are likely to vote for us next time, that way we'll make more money for ourselves. THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY BIG PROBLEMS WITH REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTS.
If we have any hope of changing things for good and on a significant scale, we must be able to design an alternate system for ensuring the harmonious interaction of mankind. People have done it before, Marx had a fantastic (albeit idealistic and somewhat unrealistic) crack at it and it even got put into production in one of the biggest countries in the world.
I've just sat here for twenty minutes thinking my way through a practical example to write down here and any way I look at it I come up with flaws. I need bigger brains than mine.
IJesusChrist
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 22/7/08
- Messages
- 7 482
to be honest, we cannot point the finger at any one person, or even a group of people... There are very few real, actual "sheeple" in the world.
The complexity in nature, in reality will over ride any finger pointing. Abstract ideas are simple. Nature is complex.
Once you realize this, you realize that everything you do is needed for the change.
People in power do not have power, the abstract idea of power. The police man that raids your house has no power, he has a ideological driving force behind him the size of a nation. The real enemy is ignorance... I am so hungover, what a bad weak to be one of my brain cells :?
The complexity in nature, in reality will over ride any finger pointing. Abstract ideas are simple. Nature is complex.
Once you realize this, you realize that everything you do is needed for the change.
People in power do not have power, the abstract idea of power. The police man that raids your house has no power, he has a ideological driving force behind him the size of a nation. The real enemy is ignorance... I am so hungover, what a bad weak to be one of my brain cells :?
itsscience
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 7/10/10
- Messages
- 560
IJC, the finger is not being pointed at individuals. It's being pointed at the institutions and the way they encourage or enable the curtailing of our fundamental rights
Crimzen a dit:
i am relaxed, you're defending... i know what your saying and my words still stand. you can't make generalizations like that. it's just the fact of the matter...
i also don't believe that domination is an inherent "instinct" either, but debating instincts is for another thread...
IJesusChrist
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 22/7/08
- Messages
- 7 482
itsscience a dit:
but the finger points.
itsscience
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 7/10/10
- Messages
- 560
it points, it fingers, it picks, it scratches, it pokes.
IJesusChrist
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 22/7/08
- Messages
- 7 482
the point is, is that you cannot point a finger at an ideology.
The ideas that we do and do not like on this board are ideologies, in that they are abstract entities in the consciousness. People and institutions hold them, but never is an institution or person of them. I for one cannot point at an ideology, and I don't think anyone else can either.
The thing is, we have to bring about a paradigm shift from the ground up, just as with every other paradigm shift it starts with us.
Slavery, women's rights, unions, etc...
I saw a good bumper sticker the other day: "The world is run by people who show up." so go do something
The ideas that we do and do not like on this board are ideologies, in that they are abstract entities in the consciousness. People and institutions hold them, but never is an institution or person of them. I for one cannot point at an ideology, and I don't think anyone else can either.
The thing is, we have to bring about a paradigm shift from the ground up, just as with every other paradigm shift it starts with us.
Slavery, women's rights, unions, etc...
I saw a good bumper sticker the other day: "The world is run by people who show up." so go do something
itsscience
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 7/10/10
- Messages
- 560
The point is that it is the institutions (which survive the individuals that staff them from time to time) that perpetuate the cycle.
My whole point of starting this thread was essentially to engender discussion on how the institutions can be replaced or modified so that they work to enable us to enjoy the truly important things rather than make us work to perpetuate the institutions.
My whole point of starting this thread was essentially to engender discussion on how the institutions can be replaced or modified so that they work to enable us to enjoy the truly important things rather than make us work to perpetuate the institutions.
this is a precedent which has been repeatedly upheld by the supreme court of the usa, corporations enjoy the same constitutional rights as individuals, most recently notable was this ;
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
frome the wiki entry-
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot[i/] be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.
The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.
The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties
The solution lies in unlearning a retarded way of living and rededicating our minds to grasping the reality that competition is not the way.....greed is not the way....war is not the way....exploiting each other is...not....the....way
Such a simple concept on the surface
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
frome the wiki entry-
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot[i/] be limited under the First Amendment. The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.
The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.
The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.” An "electioneering communication" was defined in McCain–Feingold as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003). McCain–Feingold had previously been weakened, without overruling McConnell, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007). The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties
The solution lies in unlearning a retarded way of living and rededicating our minds to grasping the reality that competition is not the way.....greed is not the way....war is not the way....exploiting each other is...not....the....way
Such a simple concept on the surface
Crimzen a dit:
i meant "being defensive" of course... yes, lets look at nature, im glad you brought it up. examine the food chain. how many predators are there in relation to animals who do not prey? if you can see that then my point becomes abundantly clear... predators are in a very small minority as opposed to animals who obtain their sustenance by other means... humans, being in the billions SHOULD NOT be predatory animals based on this given "law" of food chains. sexual instincts are an entirely different comparison... im not sure what you mean by that...? in courtship their is a mode of foreplay which appears to be like "domination", but it cannot be the same in this regard, because there is no pain involved, and... they have sex afterwards. it's obviously not real domination or the other would leave. like a tickle fight/wrestling match with your girlfriend...
excuse me?
did you just make up a law? 'should not be' has nothing to do with it, we ARE and always have been predators (for as long as i can remember)
not real domination?
whats "real" domination? perhaps our definitions differ?
i'll put it this way, whoever wheres the proverbial pants is the dominant one in a relationship
well its 5am and all this talk of domination feels a little bit like S&M so im done here for the moment
itsscience
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 7/10/10
- Messages
- 560
I agree entirely. Well said.
IJesusChrist
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 22/7/08
- Messages
- 7 482
yeah well good luck getting rid of exploitation. If you don't agree with exploitation you better quit your job
-pessimist.
-pessimist.
Crimzen a dit:
i didn't make up anything, strawman. you need some rest to create a coherent retort... it is a simple observation that most animals are not predatory. judging by this "standard" (call it what you want... i put "law" in quotations to note that that it is not a word i would choose... uh, yeah, lets not be nitpicky...) humans, should not be predators (given our relative numbers). there are underlying intricacies to this however, but as you can see, i said: given the apparent "rules" that can be observed from the food chain... i was expecting a reply to maybe point out some of the intricacies, or in some other way compliment mine. how about a intellectually stimulating reply instead of trying to insinuate something about me and S&M...?? every now and then i do appreciate a real debate or brainstorm on topics that affect my life. is that alot to ask of the community?
im sorry i can't be the jokester of this community :?: it's just very apparent to me that it's not my role. i dont take offense to petty things. i like a good debate.
IJesusChrist
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 22/7/08
- Messages
- 7 482
Please see
Exit through the gift shop - by Banksy
Bomb It
and then go visit your near-by underpass for a rude awakening to all of us attempting to splash color on the federally funded beige.
Exit through the gift shop - by Banksy
Bomb It
and then go visit your near-by underpass for a rude awakening to all of us attempting to splash color on the federally funded beige.
IJesusChrist
Holofractale de l'hypervérité
- Inscrit
- 22/7/08
- Messages
- 7 482
EAT IT YOUR PROPERTY OWNERS
P.S. it says soap, and a soap bar - the green paint is from soap. I don't know pants.
P.S. it says soap, and a soap bar - the green paint is from soap. I don't know pants.
itsscience
Alpiniste Kundalini
- Inscrit
- 7/10/10
- Messages
- 560
this achieves what ?
