Heh yes you would that a consience adapts as one chooses. Soccial moores are a little strange to me, I have never had any problems with takeing from them what I agree with and dismissing what I do not, and sociaty too has little in the way of tools to force.
No I do not think credit is evil, merely not for me. I can't trust myself to budget correctly if a line of credit was avaliabel for me. Ultimatly though Mrs Douglas wants a house in the country and so I shall one day be morgated up to the hilt no doubt. Yes I agree, a tag can be just a tag. It is a reasonable idea to hide your real self from the internet, I know this, but meh! agian that I guess is just not my way. On Sep 22, 4:07 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > Whether your morality is subjective or subjected, a conscience adapts > as one chooses or is forced by society. > > I was talking with a male friend yesterday about a convert to > Catholicism- back in the day when mates changed religions to present a > united front- who said, "Take what you want (from religion) and leave > the rest behind." That is probably easier said than done for many. > > Credit isn't evil. It certainly got me through tough times. > > A tag is not a disguise all the time. There are reasons. :-) Bye, for > now. > > On Sep 22, 9:44 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes I agree Rigsy the future is an open book. I would like to think I > > would not have allowed my wrist to be tattoed, although both clearly > > are now. > > > I don't do credit, and while it is true that I have made no attempt to > > disguise who I am in my online life, this is the choice that I have > > made, and made freely. > > > Morality like language is not static and changes from time to time so > > who knows, but I'm sure you know my view on the subjectivity of > > morality by now. > > > On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Nor would I, Lee, but the future is an open book, isn't it? Would you > > > have allowed your wrist to be tatooed with a number if you were Jewish > > > in WWII? How about the instant profile of finances that springs to > > > life when you apply for a new credit card or car loan, etc.? How about > > > the trail of internet social site profiles that influence potential > > > employers? There's GPS. Well, perhaps our transparency will lead to a > > > new morality, in some cases. > > > > I googled. I understand, somewhat. To me it's like that old term "open > > > mind" prior to technology. At the moment I am in a struggle with my > > > computer which is frustrating. How can an intricate knitter and one at > > > ease with detail be so put off by a computer- although I never have > > > studied the manuals and my children have tinkered beyond my > > > expertise. > > > > Anyway, human conscience is already an insertion of sorts, in my > > > opinion. > > > > On Sep 22, 6:34 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This true Rigsy, but again I would simply not allow the chipping of > > > > myself or mine. > > > > > As to Open Source, google it dear Rigs google it. > > > > > On Sep 21, 4:48 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > We already are able to microchip pets and infants are urged to be > > > > > registered with Social Security. Who is to say microchips for citizens > > > > > will not be a government order someday in the future? > > > > > > The government does have a great deal of power already. What is "open > > > > > source"? > > > > > > Who knows, beauty spots and warts may someday hide recorders and > > > > > cameras! :-) > > > > > > On Sep 21, 4:07 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Rigsy we are all in control of ourselves, I would not let the > > > > > > goverment microchip me or mine, would you? > > > > > > > Are the goverment really in control of technology though? I mean > > > > > > how > > > > > > much control does it have over the open source movement for example? > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 3:12 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > But if government has control of technology, healthcare and > > > > > > > education > > > > > > > why do you trust it will use those things properly? We are at the > > > > > > > dawn > > > > > > > of technology's invasion of personal liberty. For all we know, > > > > > > > microchips will be implanted at birth to track each citizen. > > > > > > > > On Sep 20, 3:25 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not even that James, merely an example of how people differ > > > > > > > > and how > > > > > > > > ideas differ and even how peoples perception of the same ideas > > > > > > > > differ. > > > > > > > > > Let us take it right back. > > > > > > > > > You said: > > > > > > > > > 'I believe in cradle to the grave social securities, and that is > > > > > > > > something that should be on offer. People will work for these > > > > > > > > things, > > > > > > > > make sacrifices, and likely be happy about it if they have a > > > > > > > > sense of > > > > > > > > it helping to strengthen society. I think many people would work > > > > > > > > harder and even be willing to work smarter if there were > > > > > > > > tangible > > > > > > > > results, if that work pays into the social securities and > > > > > > > > societal > > > > > > > > infrastructure and benefits the individual at the same time- > > > > > > > > what more > > > > > > > > could one ask for?' > > > > > > > > > My reply was saying no I do not belive that people will work > > > > > > > > for these > > > > > > > > things, make sacrifices or likely be happy about it. I > > > > > > > > meantion our > > > > > > > > history of how communisim has worked or failed to over the last > > > > > > > > 70 odd > > > > > > > > years as an example of both the priciples you mention, and the > > > > > > > > way in > > > > > > > > which humanity approaches them. > > > > > > > > > It is clear that many people will not work harder or make > > > > > > > > sacrifices > > > > > > > > even for the betterment of the whole of humanity. > > > > > > > > > You go on to say: > > > > > > > > > 'Well the more I think about this the less it sounds reasonable > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > assume that given the viable choice and reason to believe it > > > > > > > > wasn't a > > > > > > > > catch 22 that anyone capable of doing anything would choose a > > > > > > > > life of > > > > > > > > scraps over anything productive' > > > > > > > > > While this is I guess a reasonable assumption to make, again the > > > > > > > > reality of our history of Communism shows that people can, will > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > do, if not choose scraps, at least be quite content with them > > > > > > > > rather > > > > > > > > than help out their fellow man. > > > > > > > > > Ultimatly we are and odd species, rather more sheep like than > > > > > > > > wolf > > > > > > > > like. From my British eyes I can only look on astunded at the > > > > > > > > shenanigans of the Conservative Christians in the USA. Stuff > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > really shouldn't be happening or that perhaps would have > > > > > > > > ellicted a > > > > > > > > vaster outcry from the public 20 years ago. I can see how > > > > > > > > modern > > > > > > > > history has brought us to such a place, and I sorta understand > > > > > > > > how > > > > > > > > people are so easily lead on what to think and who to blame. > > > > > > > > Stronger > > > > > > > > leadership, strong moral ideas are what we need, but we can't > > > > > > > > expect > > > > > > > > the whole of humanity to help or even agree, and this exactly > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > thing. > > > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 8:05 pm, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Lee Douglas > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Heh okay I can see you didn't get my point. > > > > > > > > > > > I only mention the C word (Communisim) as an example of my > > > > > > > > > > words > > > > > > > > > > privious to uttering it. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for keeping true to it then Lee, I'll try to dig > > > > > > > > > deeper. :) I > > > > > > > > > take it you don't mean that Communism is the best example of > > > > > > > > > a society > > > > > > > > > geared toward the objectives I am proposing, nor that it is > > > > > > > > > the only > > > > > > > > > means to those ends. Should I take your meaning to be that > > > > > > > > > Communism > > > > > > > > > is a system undertaken to such social ends and proves people > > > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > > > rather sponge? I could agree with that perhaps, but I do not > > > > > > > > > agree > > > > > > > > > that people who are raised and a society that is built around > > > > > > > > > effective means to promote those ends would necessarily look > > > > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > > > like what Communism has over the last 70 years. I may still > > > > > > > > > be missing > > > > > > > > > your point, if so please hit me with the blunt end of it. :D > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 19, 4:39 pm, James Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Lee Douglas > > > > > > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > Heh James it is not hard to imagine what you see as > > > > > > > > > >> > unreasonable to be > > > > > > > > > >> > the reality of the situation. As I said in my last > > > > > > > > > >> > post, let us look > > > > > > > > > >> > at how Communisim has worked or not for us over the last > > > > > > > > > >> > 70 years or > > > > > > > > > >> > so. > > > > > > > > > > >> Political ideology may be convenient for discourse on > > > > > > > > > >> political theory > > > > > > > > > >> but when it comes to solving social challenges I think it > > > > > > > > > >> is ill > > > > > > > > > >> equipped compared to, say, child psychology. Sure, > > > > > > > > > >> communism sounds > > > > > > > > > >> great on paper, but I think it is especially prone to > > > > > > > > > >> corruption- who > > > > > > > > > >> can be trusted with such power, it might be workable under > > > > > > > > > >> a strong > > > > > > > > > >> anarcho-syndicalistic population to keep it in check but > > > > > > > > > >> then it > > > > > > > > > >> wouldn't be Communism and lacking a large scale defense > > > > > > > > > >> command&control infrastructure would be vulnerable to > > > > > > > > > >> corruption and > > > > > > > > > >> conquest from within and out. Sounds kinda pie-in-the-sky > > > > > > > > > >> for today's > > > > > > > > > >> world. > > > > > > > > > > >> > The problem is that we are all differant, what may seem > > > > > > > > > >> > sensable to > > > > > > > > > >> > some will not seem so to others. > > > > > > > > > > >> Granted, this does not establish whichever negative > > > > > > > > > >> effects are the > > > > > > > > > >> result of social systems that encourage the 'sponging' > > > > > > > > > >> behavior. What > > > > > > > > > >> I am trying to identify is the context of humanity, the > > > > > > > > > >> variables that > > > > > > > > > >> encourage beneficial and desirable behaviors and also > > > > > > > > > >> under what > > > > > > > > > >> circumstances the negatives emerge so that they can be > > > > > > > > > >> minimized. > > > > > > > > > > >> > What is you stance on the dealth penalty, as a view to > > > > > > > > > >> > an example of > > > > > > > > > >> > how differantly we all think? > > > > > > > > > > >> Hm, too expensive to pursue proper justice, ineffective > > > > > > > > > >> deterrent, > > > > > > > > > >> provides little gain to society at large. Bout sums it up > > > > > > > > > >> for me. > > > > > > > > > > >> For example one could argue beating kids and > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
