Taking Control

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject:

President Carmacho wrote:

Ophelia · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject:

Penelope:

Comedians are doing excellent business in France at the moment, and always play in packed rooms.

People tell us we don't laugh enough, among other reasons because we don't dare to.
Since (apparently) laughing is very important for your health, people go to the comedians as to the one place where they feel it is allowed to laugh continuously for one or two hours, and if you see it like this it's well worth the money you spend, even on the nights when the comedian is not a first class genius.

Some of them are good at making people think-- people will consider what comes from a comedian when they would refuse to listen to a politician or a priest.
So yes, they have a function in society.

President Camacho · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject:

Wow Theo

I couldn't find the words to accurately communicate what I meant. You're right, human rights issues are very important. I just wanted to somehow say that these types of issues are the ones that people concentrate on rather than on issues that should take precedent, like national economic agendas or foreign policy (no one is hunting gay people down in the dead of night).

Someone could have brilliant ideas for economics, education, and foreign policy, but if they happen to feel that women should have the right to chose - whamo, they are gone. It's for this reason that these types of heated issues SHOULD be kept behind closed doors... for now. If it wasn't for that particular issue... who knows.

It's all about emotions clouding our rational judgment. About realizing what can and what can't be accomplished on both sides of the table.

To illustrate:

Read your post and tell me if it wasn't written with emotion. It's practically raging. Evil or Very Mad

People get hyped up so easily by these issues and become blinded by their emotions. Whether you meant to or not, you've rallied yourself up and others who think like you, while excluding those who don't and rallying them up as well. Soon the entire reason for my thread will be long forgotten. Emotions have taken over.

See what I mean now?

These issues bring a halt to political progress. We're not ready for them, honestly. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed, it just means that they shouldn't take center stage. If just bringing them up forces them to center stage, then maybe they should be kept indoors.

I hope I've made my stance a little more clear. I've reread this post a couple times hoping that I've accurately explained how I feel.

Theomanic · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject:

Indeed, it is always difficult to convey full meaning in text. Personally I often reread what I write many times, in an effort to be as clear as possible. In fact, I have even taken a course on clear and concise writing. Laughing

In regard to your comment that my post is raging, I am honestly surprised that you find it so. If there was an over-riding emotion, it was more of an incredulous feeling, rather than anger.

I think what you are now saying is that the opinions on issues you feel are the most important should be the ones we judge our leaders on. I would heartily disagree. As I said before, the issues in question are important. Saying what people feel about them doesn't matter in the face of other issues is a judgment of your own, and not true for all people.

I would be very unlikely to vote for someone who was pro-life, regardless of their stance on other issues. This is not because it is an issue the press likes to sing and dance about, but because it is an extremely important issue to me. Other people feel just as strongly, but for the opposing side. Clearly it isn't important to you, which is fine. But then you personally can ignore those things.

Saying we shouldn't know our leaders opinion on these things says either: a) those issues don't matter, or b) the public is too simple-minded/easily riled up to make a decision on them. In response to a), I would say they are very important to some people, and that is for each person to judge on their own. In response to b), I would say that's drawing a line in the sand. How can anyone say what people are "rational" enough to judge dispassionately, and what they aren't rational enough to judge?

I'm curious about the idea that everyone should have the right to vote on all issues, but we have to keep the "heated" ones secret because the public can't handle it. Does that mean you don't believe your Kindle voting device would be a good idea at this point in time?

President Camacho · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject:

I feel like a small mouse being slowly cornered by a large cat.

I’m not saying that these issues do not have a specific level of importance that may be different for each individual. I’m saying they are incredibly divisive on a national scale and hinder progress. It is better for these issues not to be brought up at that level. Yes, ignored.

I didn’t say you shouldn’t know what your leaders think about these issues. I’m saying they shouldn’t tell you or act on their beliefs on these issues. That way we can concentrate on projects that both sides of the table can agree on.

There are many irrational and misinformed people that are easily riled up. I don’t understand what you mean by drawing a line in the sand. I think having these people vote is a good thing. I know this sounds counter-intuitive but it will create motivation to educate and assimilate these people. Both sides of the fence will be trying to attract votes and attempting to educate or brainwash. I’m sure you can imagine a couple bad decisions that will be voted on but the general upward trend will still prevail while giving everyone a chance to be heard.

Your last sentence hurt me a little bit because it proves my point. THESE ISSUES HURT PROGRESS. Remember the big picture?

You want to consider an issue that the federal government shouldn’t handle anyway. Why not have small communities or individuals decide what to do regarding this issue. If someone doesn’t like it, they can move away from their community or state that opposes their views. They won’t be able to do this if the entire nation votes.

There is nothing wrong with the voting device. The device is just a means for people to be heard. The problem is with the issues and where their place is. Sometimes it is at the national level and sometimes it isn’t.

If it is at the national level, wouldn’t you like to have a say? Most people would. After all, your current representative might not be the person you voted for. In that case, you would definitely want the little kindle.

Alright, I gotta go help the old man. I’ll be back on a little later.

DWill · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject:

bolsen1 · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject:

I've occasionally heard the saying that "Americans don't get the government (i.e., elected officials) they want, they get the government they deserve." Has anyone else heard that? Does anyone have any suggestion as to what it means?

DWill · Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject:

[quote="] Socrates was so negative about democracy because of how this direct process looked to him. He is supposed to have said some kinder things about democracy in The Republic, but it was an idea of a form of it closer to the representative type.
[/quote]

One thing I like about BookTalk is that it wouldn't be long-- if I hadn't realized the mistake--before someone told me (gently) that Plato wrote The Republic.
DWill

Ophelia · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 4:19 am Post subject:

DWill wrote:

Theomanic · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject:

Prez: Hmm... it's not that we shouldn't know our leaders opinions on these topics, but that they shouldn't tell us. You've got me stumped there, I admit! And do you honestly believe that there are issues that everyone agrees on, but nothing gets done because they're too busy debating things they don't agree on?

What I mean by "drawing a line in the sand" is who judges what people can and cannot vote on? When your judging meter is based on something arbitrary and opinion based, it can be argued that many things fall in to the "Too difficult for people to vote on properly" category. Essentially, anything someone doesn't want changed can be deemed "Too hot to vote on".

As to your suggestion of people moving about to live where they like the laws... that was one of the reasons for the civil war in the US; because they wanted ALL the states to abolish slavery. So that people couldn't keep slaves in certain parts of the country. These laws aren't just about personal choice, they're about moral imperative. Are you putting forth that slavery should be acceptable in some places? And if people disagree with slavery, they can just move?

You might say that slavery is a more important issue than laws dealing with pregnancy, but as I've stated, that is your opinion. A lot of pro-lifers think the "murder of babies every day" is a pretty big deal. And again, we have a line in the sand.

You keep saying things that imply I am not considering the issue at large. My repeated response to these comments is that the things you say are small are not necessarily small.

I don't see this upward trend that has been hypothesized in this thread (high-five DWill!). Have you seen "Idiocracy"? It is rather flippant in its delivery, but the message is clear and all too plausible.

Would I like to have a say on every topic to be voted on? I'm not certain. I'm not sure I would have the ability to properly judge all these things; it would certainly take a lot of time. I'm a decently smart person, but I don't think I'm qualified to make those decisions. As I said before, it's like hiring someone for a job and then not trusting them to do it.

More importantly, would I want everyone to have a say? Because it's not just about me, is it. And the answer is, good lord no. People tend to be short sighted and limited in foresight. As DWill said, most people don't even think global climate change is a problem. Stunning!

Ophelia: I agree very much with what you said. I don't think you're being harsh at all. Smile

President Camacho · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject:

I don't know how you can mention the abolishment of slavery and not recognize progress.

Progress is all around us.

Yesterday I was a monkey and today a man. Yesterday I had no electricity and today I have the internet. Yesterday persecuting people for their religion or the color of their skin was the norm and today it isn't.

These are more concrete variables than what you may be thinking of, such as moral fiber or things of this nature. These types of variables are difficult to measure not only because there are no specific increments but because of their importance in the grand scheme of things.

What one considers morally correct might be the reason to persecute someone.

This is how I choose to respond to your post because I feel it a personal attack rather than an academic dispute.

Your first paragraph is an excellent example of why you think by brain works in black/white rather than shades of gray and that I'm a total idiot. "And do you honestly believe that there are issues that everyone agrees on,..." Who thinks that?

The second paragraph assumes I have a mystical judging meter of some type that arbitrarily decides based on (my?) opinion, what can get voted on and what can't. Apparently ANYTHING that someone does not want to vote for is out! I am inflexible and deal in absolutes.

The third paragraph is my favorite because now I'm being questioned whether or not I want to bring slavery back. SLAVERY! Wow, that is truly amazing! To consider that I want to take away a persons freedoms and make them someone's life long servant based on the color of their skin.

I have to admit though that you shouldn't have held back so much babe. Why didn't you throw in the holocaust. You should have asked me whether or not I want to gas some Jews. Or if I want to take a trip to Cambodia and enslave an entire population.

In the fourth paragraph the drama climaxes with the death of babies and the beating of war drums. Where is my popcorn?

The fifth paragraph is an omniscient view into my soul. It tells of how I am personally affected by certain issues rather than what issues I feel should be addressed and solved rather than merely addressed for the sake of addressing them.

Listen, with regards to this. Anything changed is going to be the result of cultural change anyway. Right? Not enough people voting for it and it won't happen. The country is moving away from religion and more toward science. There are areas in the country that people can legally get abortions and there are laws protecting people from physical harm caused by those who want to see it stopped. I know you keep wanting to bring up abortion. I know I know I know. You don't understand though that if the law can't be solved it shouldn't be forced. Wait for the right time. Ever upward is true. We are getting closer and closer to the day when everyone will have like 3 abortions. Just like people get 3 divorces or have sex with multiple different sexes or change their sex... SEE??? MORE RIGHTS EVERYDAY. Ever upward. Just wait for the right time and don't force force force force. It doesn't do any good when there are issues that are ready to be solved and you want to bypass those issues for these types.

That brings me to number seven. Again, people would want to educate you to make sure you made the best decision. You also would not be forced to vote at all. The consequences of NOT educating the entire population would be disastrous. Trust me, we have established that there aren't super geniuses running the country anyway. Maybe now people will listen to academics more. Who is to say that you can't "give your vote away". It will be just like hiring someone. You can find the best person you feel for the job and defer your vote to them by asking them what they think. Then you can vote using their input.

If you're so inclined to have others think for you, then maybe you should let me do the thinking from now on! Laughing

Penelope · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject:

I suppose different things take priority with different people.

Many years ago, my neighbour had an abortion.....I didn't agree with what she did.....but I would defend her right to choose.

I feel most strongly about womens rights....but I don't mean the right to earn the same wage as a man.....because I don't care about that. But I do care about women, mostly Eastern European, but many Oriental, who are being forced into prostitution and a life of degradation, in this 'civilised' country, now as we speak. Not always women either, some who are still little girls. I care about Asian ladies suffering abuse from their husbands and families...

We get reports about this on our TV's and in our newspapers - but still people are making a fuss about petrol (gas) prices because it effects their pockets. Not my priority!

I don't agree with fox hunting and blood sports.....but they just aren't at the top of my priorities list. I have been known to urge my friends and children to choose a priority.... not necessarily my own.....but choose something to care about, rather than not give a damn about anybody.

The trouble is, we are not able to give our full support, emotional or economic to all the good causes. So I choose one that I might have the glimmer of a hope of affecting in some small way.

When it comes to the Government taking any notice.....it seems to be the ones with the ability to shout the loudest. Some people have no voice and so I think it is up to the rest of us to do the shouting for them. Razz

Theomanic · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject:

Prez: I am sorry you are taking our disagreement on these issues so personally. I was not taking anything personally, and didn't become upset until you called me "babe".

As I'm not interested in trolling or flame wars, I'll consider our debate over.

Penelope: I agree with you, I feel very strongly about women's rights. I think part of that is because I feel they have been dismissed for so long that it's about time! Smile

But I suppose that argument is true for a lot of things. I guess when it comes right down to it, we all care the most about the things we can empathize with.

Ophelia · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:26 pm Post subject:

Penelope,

I agree with the criticism you make about the present time, and there would
be much more to add, but the idea that echoed in me from what Camacho wrote was that the trend was globally upward.

This is the reverse of what I always heard when I was a child. I was brought up by a mother who always seemed to say that the past was better: not polluted, no terrible crime as we have, etc... Whatever was natural and untainted by "progress" was better.
Also the 70's were the years of the return to nature, and it sounded so much better than what we had...

I remember the shock I had when I was a teenager and I saw a documentary showing a traditional tribe (perhaps in Africa): This was life as it might have been 100 years ago, untainted by anything, and I thought so this was the reality of this ideal past... it was DREADFUL! Not because they had no cars or electricity, but because I could see that the women were doing all the work, were not making any decisions, were considered impure and put in a hut during menstruation, etc...
I really don't think this is what the film makers particularly wanted the viewers to think, but this is what I saw.
I've never thought westerners who "know better" should go there and interfere forcefully, but I decided that from now on I'd be cautious and not consider that the present was necessarily a degenerate version of the past.

I agree with you that sexual slavery is an abomination of the present, but it's illegal and some people are fighting against it, and have the law on their side. In the past what was done to women was legal, and women didn't even have the reference of a mental framework that could put male or abusive behaviour into perspective.

(P-S: I was also raised by a father, but he did not contribute to this theme.
And my Mom is a modern woman in many aspects.)

President Camacho · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:50 pm Post subject:

When you arrogantly test someone's intelligence with questions designed to trap them and then question their ethics by asking them if they believe in slavery... it's personal.

You have a style of arguing that relies on personal jabs and confused assumptions.

Instead of trying to find out where someone is coming from and giving them the benefit of the doubt, you do the ugly thing. You assume the worst and ask them outrageous questions designed to make them look stupid and unethical. It's awful.

Now you're done with the debate because obviously I've become ill-mannered in my tactics. Welcome to what it's like to debate with you.

I hope you appreciate what I'm doing. It's definitely not helping my image or winning me any friends. Take this as a life lesson and incorporate what you've learned from it into your future discussions.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT