That depends on what it is and where it's coming from. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You imply I'm some kind of monster because of the box you're stuck in, and I call you a fucking moron. This seems like a fair exchange of insults to me.
Nah, seriously duendy, you are pretty stupid. I for one am fascinated. What are you? Tell us your story. I always took you for a 12 year old boy, but lately I've gotten mixed impressions, most of the time it seems like you're a 12 year old boy out of touch with reality but there's been a few times you've seemed like an elderly woman, and still others where you came accross as a gay negro. I really don't know what to think.
Morris: Yes. And values might converge to the point where everyone agrees not to take each other's life, but still hold separate values that do not conflict. Thats why we value 'tolerance'. It sublimates the conflict over values because the conflict is usually mutually destructive. It seems to be a fairly natural development. "reasonably". What constitutes a 'reasonable' value, for instance the hairstyle? There's a reason why a crackhead is a crackhead. We can choose any values we want, but only the the ones that value life will survive. The ones without life-giving values will wither and die (like the crackhead). It therefore seems reasonable to assume that values will 'reasonably' be focused on the maintenance of a certain lifeform, which is a very objective thing (although it admits of conflict and certain deviations, but those deviations and conflict are by no means necessary). That being said, all that remains is to create a physical situation where all the lifeforms can pursue their own values without coming into conflict. Which really isn't that hard, most humans living close together in large groups automatically do this; just as a natural result of the survival strategy of the group. (nations, cities, share values). "nearly always" solves most problems. The rest are a matter of simple police actions. "homogenous value" isn't necessarily undesirable. You just say that because you value conflicting values. The Nazis or Soviets, or the United States after WWII, could maybe have done it... by blowing the enemy to hell with nukes and forcing them to surrender, then just rolling in. But it wouldn't be pretty. However, the world is a much smaller place today and it will only get smaller in the future. And history shows that as long as war is a reality in certain regions, a single power will usually consolidate the separate warring states and create an empire, within it a pocket of peace. Well, I wouldn't call Klaatu a sheep. Again, it only seems wrong because you value war and violence. Taking away freedom gives freedom. For instance, if the US did not have to maintain a large standing army, it could funnel more resources into colonizing space and developing cheap reusable energy, AI, robotics... all of which might eventually make us all rich. Wealth gives freedom. I was kidding. That it can happen, doesn't mean it necessarily will happen. The benefit of MAD is that it reduces war to sheer absurdity. The downside of course, is that you have to keep that power out of the hands of some crazy bastard. But that's easy. Not only can you keep power out of the hands of some absurd individuals, you also can create logical systems that automatically protect themselves against absurdity. Technology is such that it could be used for defense or destruction. Preventing destruction is simply a matter of creating a machine powerful enough and knowledgable enough to do it (like Gort). Humans have free will, so they can choose to do this if they wish. Its a process of nature that the technologies used for defense will survive, and the technologies used for destruction will simply destroy themselves. Humans might have one nuclear war, then another, and another, but eventually they will either get it right or die (and humans can learn lessons, so there's hope). There's no 'middle way'. Only one way or the other, when you start to deal with truly powerful forces of either capacity. You can never be assured against physical violence, but it can be reduced to a level that is negligable.
Ne he seems like a usuall artist, probably surealist... able to spot good and bad qualities in people , instead of the opinionless drone you find everywhere in these forums. And I suggest you cut down on the racism a bit, I dont know how many gay negros you meet every day but that was a very offensive thing to say.
Psychoanalyzing the doctor.......????????????? In MY thread!?!?!?!? GET OUT then. Ferchrissake. Odin, you are not the goddamned thought police either. What's wrong with being a gay negro if you're a gay negro? Fucking PC bitches get your own panty-waste goddamned thread. Bob- I'll get to it ASAIC.
Doubtful, except by force - which creates a whole new problem. I don't like big brother so much. How do you take the point plexus made? I thought he put it well. But each values tolerance in his own way, and his own brand of tolerance. Everything is natural. I don't see how something in the universe could possibly be un-natural. Sane action given circumstance. If for instance you are a politician or a model, your economic survival is dependent on your surface. Hairstyle becomes a reasonable facet of your survival, because if it looks like shit, you don't survive. But in the case of a talking head for instance, hairstyle is life-giving. I think the problem is that most people can't relate to the circumstance of others. The crackhead escapes his circumstance via walking death. Ultimately, he'll die to remove himself from what he percieves to be his circumstance. I think you're right, but said maintenance is very abstract and hard to relate to. PETA for instance, hates the man who kills chickens to live. They can't relate to his percieved circumstance. Instead, they insist his perception is incorrect. Of course to him, it's THEIR perception that's incorrect.... hence conflict that will eventually reach violence if the commitment to premise on either side is strong enough. But it's the means that are subjective and generally distorted in the eyes of others. I don't see that as possible at this time without some major catastrophe to cause people to huddle together. While there is no threat to cause such a huddle, the species competes for what they percieve to be dominance, even if that dominance just means being able to play x-box all day on saturday. As if people don't kill each other regularly in such scenarios? As if that extinguishes the long term likelihood of war? I don't think so. I think you thing about MAD is much more effective to this end. Think about it statistically. There are a certain percent of humans that are predators of some kind or another. Well, I just think it's much harder than you seem to think - or it would be done already. Did you miss the point about a single dude being able to extinctificate the species? That's where we're headed eventually if we don't get off this rock before some madman gets his hands on a doomsday device. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tell that to the families of the victims of murderous bastards. I disagree as specified below. I do? In what way? I say it because of the role the principle of diversity plays in healthy ecosystems. I'm applying it analagously to human society. I think there is merit to the comparison, but don't want to make a big issue of it here. Nor would it have lasted long I don't think. Some cultures are zenophobic and don't die until the last member passes. It would take a genocide or few to get one world culture, and then I'd guess it might spawn NEW cultures anyway, which would develop values that other cultures couldn't relate to, leading to conflict and perhaps something similar to the conversation between russia and chechnia(can't spell) mentioned above. Absolutely, barring yellowstone blowing its top or some other world calamity causing a major setback. History also shows that empires crumble. Not him, the humans. I don't personally, no. I do however, think it's inevitable as I've stated a number of times. I don't value it, but I do think it must serve some function. Thus I try to analyze what that function might be. I think it has a utility in the system of human interaction, though it's a grim, horrible utitlity. It's easy to think "war is bad" because it IS from the perspective of the individual who is harmed by it. It's tougher in my opinion, to consider that it may not be ALL bad. Regardless of what we deem it "good or bad", I still think it's inevitable in some form. Okay, that is messed up right there. LOL. But how are you going to fight back the hordes that invade your wuss-ass nation? You're over the top here. If the US didn't have a standing army and was the economic power house that it is, it would be taken down at the first opportunity by those who want economic goodness. Not exactly. Wealth IS freedom to some degree, but it also is a prison - depending on the wealthy person. The wealthy are a target for those who want wealth. K. It is? I don't see how. But how? Sure, and as it is created, it is inherently used for either - at the whim of those that manage to get their hands on it. Which is easy, if you're commited to the premise. That is not at all simple. People don't like the idea of bowing to their mechanist masters. WAR for sure. Death on an global scale I'd think. They won't choose it. That's just wrong. Any technology can be used for either. Oh sure there is. Don't have nuclear wars. Keep combat "conventional" so to speak, like they're doing now. There is no such thing as negligible to a dead man.
Do you like police, civilization? A subjective value. Nevertheless, it is tolerance. Without the development of tolerance, Old Europe would never have gotten over it's religious wars, Colonial America would not have united. People tolerate differences in values, when a greater mutually shared value overwhelms smaller petty concerns. You're understanding the word wrong then. Look it in the dictionary. What constitutes sane action?(look below) Exactly. Sane, objective values are life giving. Theres no law of nature that says that people ultimately can't relate to each other. People value survival. It would be to the mutual benefit of everyone on this planet, to end war. They just don't trust one another enough to do it. Yes. One side will destroy the other, or they will come to an objective conclusion by reasonable means, and the affair will be settled. As a result of error. People are very happy to co-exist if there are enough resources for them to share, and benefit mutually from the arrangement. It is perfectly sane, rather than the absurdity of systematically mutilating each other. Killing each other is precisely the method by which they achieve peace. A single power dominates the rest and grows by positive-feedback. Empire forms, where nation-states existed. Look at the history of China for example. Even a terrorist getting hands on a nuke would hardly 'extinctificate' the human race. So presently, we're in the clear. Unless Russia launches its nukes at us, which I don't think will happen anytime soon. Again, such a society would simply never exist. It would instantly destroy itself. Yeah, but we're talking 'inevitability of war' here. Not 'inevitability of crime'. "homogenous value is the death of the species". Clearly you value diversity, and you identify diversity as conflict, with the result being the inevitability of war. I like that principle. When you think about it, it's dead-on. However, 'diversity' doesn't necessarily mean conflict. Bear with me. A human body is made of 'diverse' cells, right? Do those cells conflict? A group of humans is no different than a group of cells. They band together, agree to a common purpose. That's a society. The freedom of being part of a body, which comes from homogenous value, gives them the ability to diversify and benefit the body even further. It's the principle of a 'symbiotic relationship'. Separate organisms share a common need, and they evolve so that they mutually benefit one another. Inevitably, its the only rational way out for the human race. The alternative is our own destruction. Not one world culture. One world peace. Not 'homogenous' values. Mutually beneficial values. From outside attack. A world empire would be more like historical China or certain island nations. Many empires could have potentially lasted millenium (ancient egypt for example), because power in their region was so easily consolidated. Klaatu did not have the ability to initiate violence himself. Gort would have destroyed him. So by your theory, he was a sheep. By mine, he was smart as hell. Surely it mustn't be hard for you to imagine other people agreeing with you... Most of the time, war is completely absurd. WWI for instance. What purpose did that serve? It's a little bit Zen, I admit. One 'freedom' is not the same as the other. Just think of the concept of police, who take away your freedom to harm others- thereby giving you the freedom to walk in the streets safely and live out your life without fear. My scenario implied some kind of Gort-like power or world government would be policing all nations and automatically preventing violence. Wealth means you can travel farther, live longer, have more 'free' time (as much as you want), do what you want with your life. That's freedom. My concept of wealth is not relative, remember. It is? I don't see how. We're doing it right now. Haven't been suitcase-nuked yet. A shield for example, cannot be used for offense. If you create a piece of technology like a shield, or a robot with designed circuitry that makes it incapable of aggressive violence, then the task is accomplished. Death on a global scale.... as opposed to what, inevitable death on a global scale? I choose the mechanist robot-policemen. I'd rather be on their side, and if I'm not I'll be blown to hell anyway, right? I would. If I knew the machine was benevolent in nature. More reliable than any human. I trust machines more than I do humans. Its simply a matter of values, right? Actually, I think its inevitable. That's called the 'right' choice. Indeed.
the fact is he knows dundley is not a gay negro so its obviously being used as an insult, which borders on racism. I was psycho analising Dundley not the doc, the doc already knows hes a lunatic.
No, I'm pretty sure he truely is a gay negro. And excuse me, but I actually started a charity organisation specifically for the support and funding of gay negroism around the world. What have you done for gay negros lately? Click on my username and in my profile you'll see the link to my website, yes I am serious. We're expecting a big donation from you. Me and thousands of hungry gay negros around the world. I'll also be expecting you to do volonteer work refereeing for the fund raising gay negro basketball game coming up. Our last referee died of aids. Oh yes, you probably should have kept your big mouth shut.
Don't you have something substinative to add to the thread? If not, why not just leave? Bob is representing the "anti-war" side of the arguement pretty well. You have offered nothing but dogmatic hippy drivel. I presume you're proud of it. Then you have the gaul to call someone else a poor judge of character? Dude, stop sucking.
I would tell you the same but.. you had a big....in it... .(diverges from course of insult) Thats actually quite funny. ehm ye...
Man succeeded to his position among animals because of violence and strength. Why do you want to get rid of the qualities that made us successful? Countries are what they are today because of violence and strength. If someone like Hitler came around today, how long would you wave your finger at him before groping for something sharp? As we read history today, we are sure to shake our heads at casualties, but then we move on to marvel at those things that were achieved through war. Only some things are tolerated, not all. Each individual values his own survival, primarily; then, there is survival of his family; then, his group/nation. If interests of another nation conflict with interests of his country, the individual inevitably supports interests of his country first. Survival of humanity as a whole... matters little in comparison with the above on our daily basis; we've reproduced and spread around enough. That's not proven yet. Exactly. And you know from experience that not all people can be trusted and there needs to be different extent of trust, depending on various circumstances. If we could all trust each other.... Hah! idealism. PETA is a bad example, because it's not a country. There's law enforcement over PETA members. A country gov't recognizes no higher authority than its own.
