|
On July 30 2006 23:10 IntoTheWow wrote: Strafe and I have been doing more approaches at this stuff. We will make an update someday, with video if possible. Be sure to include a little R. Kelly action.
|
Either of Chibi's pre-fabricated scenarios is barbaric and 1) is only preferable because of its relative moderation as compared to option 2) Both anarchy and the police state would be ruinous to society, and furthermore, unhistorical. In reality there are and have been very few total anarchies or total police states.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
Freedom is not an end in itself, despite the rhetoric of George W Bush, nor is it absolutely possible even in a state without government. On the contrary, without government our freedom would be considerably curtailed by those natural elements which would blow our unguided lives about, and man, rather than being released to his leisure, would be forced to spend all his strength merely clinging to existence. Government of the 16th century was far weaker than government of today, but can we say that the peasant of that age was freer than us? The ideal government therefore does not minimize our freedoms, but maximize them. Its laws, contrary to restraining us, make it possible for a free society to develop by limiting only the most dangerous exercises of freedom. Thus in scenario 2) you provide society with theoretical freedom, for all the good it does when a gunman, like any beast in nature is free to prey on you and render all such theory irrelevent.
As for scenario 1) yes, there are certain states of society when I think it justifiable that the government monitors society in order to secure the aims described above, but an institutional police state is again contrary to the needs of society in the long-run, because of three conditions i) Ultimately social tendencies, including moral and religious tendencies decide the dynamics of society, and not our institutions. ii) Institutionally-imposed virtues are woefully inadequate to the task of remedying wide-spread vices. iii) Such mechanisms will never be free of corruption from above iv) It seems to me a wasteful practise in sophistry to build an institutional machine with the object of controlling ourselves. It seems that old-fashioned moral remedies, such as self-control are both more effective and less dangerous than political remedies.
|
TL;DR
You have a lot of time on your hands.
Eat some shrooms and let things mull over in your head for a bit.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
On July 30 2006 21:48 roadrunner_sc wrote: ...Was that supposed to be "quite" serious topic....?
Yep.
|
moltke that was an absolutely fantastic post
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Ok so underage dating is bad and girls with as grtass dont smell fud.
ASK ME SOMETHING IM DRUNK AND HONEST / THREAD JACKED
gogo
1. 2. 3.
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Chibi asked me some serious shit:
one good question to pose is what are you views on death and dying and the hopelessness of being etc? how do you come to terms with finality (??) would you live forever?
And being that i am the smartest person here i feel compelled to answer this questionaireesquetypeconvo.
1. Death and dying is something inevitable and to come. It isnt something to dread or even live in fear of avoiding, its fucking constant. NOBODY avoids it, we all try and control HOW it happens but in reality we have very little say on that. Live your fucking life. DOnt be stupid but dont worry about the fucking end. Mitch hedberg said it well, "Am i going to eat this fucking apple? Your god damn right i am. 'Well it will be a core at the end' who gives a shit? WHen im eating it its a fucking delicious aopoolke"
Finality is the easiest thing to come to terms with. No fucking grey area nd no god damn possibility or room for doubt or change. It is what it fucking is, deal.
No, i like that life is limited. Gives value to things. What the fuck is the purpose of being 20 if your going to stick there forever/
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
THIS THREAD IS CERAL GUYS, SUPER CERAL RESPONDE
|
United Kingdom10597 Posts
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
forever is relative. Forever just means to the end of existance. So if our existance is limited and we are able to "love" until that end than it was (in terms ofus) "forever" as it spanned our entire conscience being.
Love = forever is a desire.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9935 Posts
i would think that most people believe 'forever' is literal, because of the afterlife and the idea of souls personally i have to totally agree with you though
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
It can be literal, seeing as how nobody has spanned the afterlife we are left with dealing in that which we know. And that is that we "exist" consciously in the NOW and the here as mortals. Going beyond that is uncompelling as it would be in this discussion. Im Roman catholic and firmly believe in an afterlife but as we do not know how is specifically constructed i would see it wise to deal with that which we kNOW and that is that life is limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|