Bush is the worst by far.
On the topic of Bush being the worst U.S President, I’ve discovered
cause to dispute that.
Having just read “Lies my teacher told me”, a book intended to
illustrate the inaccuracies of U.S history curriculums, I’ve read a
thorough account of more egregious behaviour
John Garcia wrote:
On a different tack, some of us who are of a particular age, will remember
another controversial President associated
with an unpopular war, floundering economy, etc. So, what do you all think?
Nixon vs Bush (the son). Which was worse
I'll say Bush is worse since he is
On Sep 24, 2008, at 9:12 AM, John Williams wrote:
Conscript them like a jury.
Unfortunately, I imagine that forcing people to be politicians
would destroy most good qualities that they might have had
in the job.
The politician part is more involved in seeking office than in
exercising it.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:54 AM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 24, 2008, at 11:26 AM, John Williams wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Golly, that sounds familiar. Echoes of the Iraq war, anyone?
Those politicians are slippery.
And how!
What do others think about
John wrote:
So, what do you all think?
Nixon vs Bush (the son). Which was worse?
Bush is the worst by far. Nixon had a few positive things going on
(detente, China), he appointed moderate judges and he inherited Viet Nam.
Bush has nothing, absolutely nothing positive to tout unless you're
On 24/09/2008, at 9:12 AM, John Williams wrote:\
The only thing that would put my mind at ease would be for the
people to
have a strong distrust for leaders as well as a culture of not
forcing ideals
upon others. And the courage to fight if the leaders break the trust
that was
placed
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or for more people to actually participate in their democracy. By that
I mean serving, rather than merely voting.
Increasing the number of potential politicians and rule-makers would
not reassure me at all. Keeping the same number of politicians (or
reducing
On 24 Sep 2008, at 14:50, John Williams wrote:
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or for more people to actually participate in their democracy. By
that
I mean serving, rather than merely voting.
Increasing the number of potential politicians and rule-makers would
not reassure me at all.
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conscript them like a jury.
Unfortunately, I imagine that forcing people to be politicians
would destroy most good qualities that they might have had
in the job.
___
On 24 Sep 2008, at 15:12, John Williams wrote:
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conscript them like a jury.
Unfortunately, I imagine that forcing people to be politicians
would destroy most good qualities that they might have had
in the job.
They'd still be better than what we have.
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They'd still be better than what we have.
I'd like more politicians like Mike Pence:
I must tell you, there are those in the public debate who have said
that we must act now. The last time I heard that, I was on a used-car
lot, said Rep. Mike Pence,
John Williams wrote:
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They'd still be better than what we have.
I'd like more politicians like Mike Pence:
I must tell you, there are those in the public debate who have said
that we must act now. The last time I heard that, I was on a used-car
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
When you learn that this plan is something they have been working on for
months now, you know they were just waiting for an opportunity to spring
this on people and ram it through before anyone could read the fine
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Golly, that sounds familiar. Echoes of the Iraq war, anyone?
Those politicians are slippery.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sep 24, 2008, at 11:26 AM, John Williams wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Golly, that sounds familiar. Echoes of the Iraq war, anyone?
Those politicians are slippery.
And how!
What do others think about two bits of news from the American
election this week:
1) The two campaigns
- Original Message -
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I moved to the US
(which I wouldn't) part of the deal I would strike with the government
would
be to accept say bans on short selling of stick if the government decided
that was a good idea,
What if the government
Sorry if the analogy is confusing or faulty, my main point is that
governments are consenting partners too.
That just ain't so. As has been observed Government is force. and
there's sweet F.A negotiation between it, its agents and the citizens it
bends to its will.
Force generally is not
On 23/09/2008, at 10:26 AM, Dan M wrote:
Other posters have pointed out the fact that best suited is
dependant on
the particulars of the environment, the history of environments, etc.
Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there
is no
teleology in evolution.
If
On 23/09/2008, at 10:26 AM, Dan M wrote:
Other posters have pointed out the fact that best suited is
dependant on
the particulars of the environment, the history of environments, etc.
Charlie may correct me, but I think I recall him stating that there
is no
teleology in evolution.
If
Maybe I am in the minority, but I have never felt the government is
opressing me, or forcing me to do things I don't want to do, and I reckon I
get fair recompence for paying my taxes obeying the law.
It is not required for a government to be oppresive for it to be true
that you do not
From: Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry if the analogy is confusing or faulty, my main point is that
governments are consenting partners too.
That just ain't so. As has been observed Government is force. and
there's sweet F.A negotiation between it, its agents and the citizens it
bends
Wayne Eddy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another part of the deal (there would of course be thousands of parts)
would be assurances that I would not become a slave after I emigrated (I
believe the American constitution would spell that out).
Since the American constitution can be amended, that would
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:06 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
You seem to be talking about an odd sort of consent. You will consent
to do any new thing that the government decides to tell you to do, as
long as it is not too many things. In case it is not clear, the examples
I listed
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see some confusion here about consent versus consensus.
I said nothing about consensus. Now that you've mentioned that you
post nonsense if you don't have enough caffeine, I don't know when
to take your posts seriously.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:14 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see some confusion here about consent versus consensus.
I said nothing about consensus. Now that you've mentioned that you
post nonsense if you don't have enough caffeine, I don't know
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, you said nothing about consensus. That is exactly why I brought it up.
You seem to have confused me with someone else. You get confused a lot,
don't you?
___
) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 7:06 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrotemailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You seem to be talking about an odd sort of consent. You will consent
Olin Elliott wrote
I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree,
so long as they are elected by legal democratic means.
Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means.
This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not
democratic. It's like Bush II in
Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means.
Let me guess Nick's response:
I see some confusion about elected versus selected by a
vote. Let's debate which is better. Or perhaps we could
all vote on a rule about which language we may use.
Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not
democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the
electoral college, and not by the people.
Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular
preference, instead of
John Williams wrote:
This is a myth. He (Hitler) was elected by the parliament, which
is not democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected
by the electoral college, and not by the people.
Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular
preference, instead of 50.1%?
Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have no fsking idea what you are trolling about.
That makes two of us! I'm having a good day if I understand
more that 50% of what I am trolling about.
OTOH, Bush II was _accepted_ by 75% of the USA voters - only
25% voted against him.
26%, you didn't
- Original Message -
From: Alberto Monteiromailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
Olin Elliott wrote
I give my consent to be governed by people
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point was simply that being chosen by Democratic means does not mean
that a leader is fit to rule, or that he has any respect for Democratic
process.
If there isn't a reasonable correlation there, then democracy is
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If there isn't a reasonable correlation there, then democracy is in trouble.
Perhaps so.
Or perhaps people place too much faith in politicians and government, and
would be better off reducing their power and scope.
On 24/09/2008, at 3:11 AM, Olin Elliott wrote:
I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so
long as
they are elected by legal democratic means.
Nick
Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means.
Olin
Kind of. Was horse-trading in the parliament that got
I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as
they are elected by legal democratic means.
I doubt very much anyone ever asked you (who had the will and power to
change it) if it was okay that you were governed by the system in place.
And absent that you haven't
Don't forget, Hitler was elected by Democratic means.
While initially true it is inaccurate to claim he took power
democratically. His party was elected to a significant proportion of
government but the position of authority he abused was bestowed by
presidential executive fiat.
This is a myth. He was elected by the parliament, which is not
democratic. It's like Bush II in 2000, who was elected by the
electoral college, and not by the people.
Ah, so you are saying it was only about 49.9% of the popular
preference, instead of 50.1%? Sounds like a robust system.
Euan Ritchie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That combination of economic depression and exploitable militarism is
something to worry about, really quite topical.
I agree. I think it is scary.
Although a problematic example it does give on pause to wonder about the
situation where a democratic election
it does give on pause to wonder about the
situation where a democratic election may place people to whom democracy
is disposable in power. I guess it's a string argument for rigid
Constitutional rule.
I'm not sure how rigid constitutional rule would be able to stop a determined
leader with
At 05:35 PM Tuesday 9/23/2008, Euan Ritchie wrote:
I give my consent to be governed by people with whom I disagree, so long as
they are elected by legal democratic means.
I doubt very much anyone ever asked you (who had the will and power to
change it) if it was okay that you were governed
At 03:36 AM Tuesday 9/23/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote:
You can't trade away your right to trade something (slaves say) in exchange
for Citizenship, and then expect to be able to sell slaves anyway anymore
than you can trade your cow to one person for a horse and the same cow to a
second person for a
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant.
The universe is stranger than we can imagine :)
C
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 5:49 PM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Some examples would be raising taxes for a national health care plan,
barring
a new store from being built on private property, banning short-sales of
stock,
raising the minimum wage, import/export tariffs, banning
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm struggling to see those as examples of people imposing their will on
others.
Pick one that you are struggling with and I will be glad to explain if you
really
cannot see it.
___
Well, I'm finally back with power.
Dan, why do you say Richard's history lesson is an aside to the main
thrust of your argument? Because most ancient regimes did not place value
on individual human rights, and are often replaced with different despots?
Of course some despots are worse than
- Original Message -
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Some examples would be raising taxes for a national health care plan,
barring
a new store from being built on private property, banning short-sales of
stock,
raising the minimum wage, import/export tariffs, banning
Wayne Eddy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I moved to the US
(which I wouldn't) part of the deal I would strike with the government would
be to accept say bans on short selling of stick if the government decided
that was a good idea,
What if the government decided all citizens who immigrated from
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:16 AM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan, I hope that You and yours and your home are OK. I heard
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes
natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a
combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former
is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two
haven't been reconciled.
Skipped Physics 101, did you?
___
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The
former
is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two
haven't been reconciled.
Skipped
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 8:33:20 AM
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:28 AM, John Williams
wrote:
Nick Arnett
This seems to me to be a bit like
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:47 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I find it sad how many people here speak with great authority about that
which
they obviously do not know.
Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks
exhibit when they are certain that most
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks
exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot.
Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea that all those
idiots must be taken care of by those who think
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
realize it when their infallibility is pointed out.
Such as this lack of infallibility. I certainly hope this guy doesn't
try to force his will on others with mistakes like that!
___
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:09 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, it is so sad. Almost as sad as the patronizing attitude some folks
exhibit when they are certain that most everybody else is an idiot.
Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway, I suspect you are trying to cross-pollinate threads here by alluding
to political ideas I expressed elsewhere and implying that they must be
wrong because I misspoke here.
I am not implying that anything must be wrong, only that some know less
than
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 9:35 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
We allow mistakes to be pointed here, too. Otherwise, how will those who
think they are qualified to impose their will on others ever find out that
they
never will be? Let's make it a rule!
Criticism is most certainly
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
May I ask this... you seem to be implying that to impose one's will on
others is wrong. Is that what you would have us believe?
I would not presume to tell you what to believe. I rarely know what to believe
myself. But one thing I do know is that when people
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But one thing I do know is that when people try to impose their ideals
on me, I feel that I should oppose them.
I think this may have a connection to Doug's post.
The statement above could perhaps be taken as part of the basis of an
ethical system. Something
On 22/09/2008, at 12:37 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki
describes
natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur
through a
combination of
On 22/09/2008, at 2:16 AM, John Williams wrote:
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
realize it when their infallibility is pointed out.
Such as this lack of infallibility. I certainly hope this guy doesn't
try to force his will on others with mistakes like that!
It's possible to tell
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant.
Ack! I'll never earn a living this way!
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 22/09/2008, at 6:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Charlie Bell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
You've hit on something that's both profound and irrelevant.
Ack! I'll never earn a living this way!
Heheh! Seriously, it's a good point you made, but it's more
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing
views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way
trying to be superior.
That is not what I was implying.
It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and
this is a
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing
views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way
trying to be superior. It makes for a much friendlier discussion, and
this is a discussion list.
Charlie.
Too true.
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 2:16 PM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's possible to tell people they're wrong and point out opposing
views without constantly implying that the other party is in some way
trying to be superior.
That is not what I was
Yes, that is sad. Especially when combined with the idea
that all those
idiots must be taken care of by those who think they have
the knowledge
and ability to fix everything, but who obviously do not,
and do not even
realize it when their infallibility is pointed out.
you're projecting,
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The examples that come to me are things like urging others to vote for the
candidate I believe to be most qualified or urging people to give to certain
charities that believe do good work.
Are you being serious here? Do you really think that might be what I
Dan, I hope that You and yours and your home are OK. I heard that half of
the Houston area is still without power, if you're home I hope you're among
the lucky half.
Dan wrote:
Well, I guess it depends on what you base your understanding of evidence
on,
and to what degree you accept
So what if you don't believe in God and your neighbors
are alcholic assholes who keep the neighberhood up all night
and mistreat their dogs?
Olin
hopefully they will pass out and their dogs will attack them!~)
jon
___
, 2008 1:11 PM
Subject: Science and Ideals.
So what if you don't believe in God and your neighbors
are alcholic assholes who keep the neighberhood up all night
and mistreat their dogs?
Olin
hopefully they will pass out and their dogs will attack them!~)
jon
Kevin said:
Minor nit. The battle of Manzikert was in 1071.
Yes, you're right. Thank you.
Rich, who must read more about Byzantine history.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
I'm trying to figure out what the two laws of god that Dan referred to in
his reply to my last post. The only thing I found on the net is love god
and love thy neighbor which I can't imagine is what he means. Can you help
me out here Dan? Anyone?
Doug
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 6:13 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
I'm trying to figure out what the two laws of god that Dan
Let us begin with this basic knowledge. This is found in
the tautology of true and false statements or simple basic yes or
no logic. I am sure yes and no is not beyond the grasp of any
conversant on this page.
The truth or falsity of a particular idea exists in the
truth of logic, which is
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Dan M wrote:
Earlier than Jesus, Eammial (sp) one of the founding rabbis of the
Talmud has been quoted saying something very similar to what Jesus said
as the second law about 100 years earlier.
There's a story that goes with this, but my portable just crashed and I
and mistreat their dogs?
Olin
- Original Message -
From: Dan Mmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion'mailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 4:44 PM
Subject: RE: Science and Ideals.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
At 08:40 PM Sunday 9/7/2008, Olin Elliott wrote:
Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and
mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments
that Jesus refers too.
So what if you don't believe in God and your neighbors are alcholic
At 08:40 PM Sunday 9/7/2008, Olin Elliott wrote:
Yup, those are the two laws. Loving God with all one's heart, soul, and
mind and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the two Great Commandments
that Jesus refers too.
So what if you don't believe in God
At this holiday season in December,
At 08:18 PM Sunday 9/7/2008, Julia Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Dan M wrote:
Earlier than Jesus, Eammial (sp) one of the founding rabbis of the
Talmud has been quoted saying something very similar to what Jesus said
as the second law about 100 years earlier.
There's a story that
At 06:44 PM Sunday 9/7/2008, Dan M wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 6:13 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
I'm trying
I stand corrected by your detailed knowledge of that
history, Richard. I
will accept that my quick recollection of history was all
too facile, and I
honestly appreciate your history lesson. I'm snipping
it, because I do
think it is an aside to the main thrust of my argument.
But, if you
Richard Baker wrote:
The second major collapse occurred with the defeat
of Romanus Diogenes by the Seljuk Turkish
sultan Alp Arslan at Manzikert in 1054. (The Seljuk sultanate was a
successor to the Arab Caliphates that had inflicted the earlier
defeats on the Byzantines.)
Minor
Dan M wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Richard Baker
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:25 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan M said:
Historically, empires can last
, September 04, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
Andrew C wrote 9-4-08
Yes, but where does the ability to do so come from? I'd argue that only
Humans and a few other animals have the ability to comprehend altruistic
ideals - and here we touch on self-awareness: Understanding
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 10:59 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan M wrote:
No, actually, I believe
Dan M said:
Historically, empires can last a long time. The eastern part of the
Roman
Empire, which was split by Constantine in the 300s, lasted roughly
1500
years, and was defeated by another empire. IIRC, the Chinese empire
lasted
about the same length until it was overtook by the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Richard Baker
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:25 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan M said:
Historically, empires can last a long time
On 6 Sep 2008, at 01:18, Dan M wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Richard Baker
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:25 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
Dan M said
On 4 Sep 2008 at 1:19, William T Goodall wrote:
On 3 Sep 2008, at 23:08, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 2 Sep 2008 at 19:07, William T Goodall wrote:
I think that our capacity for ethics comes from our social animal
nature but that telling good from bad comes from thinking about
On 4 Sep 2008, at 17:27, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2008 at 1:19, William T Goodall wrote:
I was thinking that despite the differences in the underlying
mechanisms our hypothetical aliens might begin to reach similar
conclusions once they applied more advanced thinking to the subject.
On 9/2/08, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just like how without an external yardstick there is no way to call
Uwe Boll's _BloodRayne_ better than Shakespeare's _Hamlet_. Because if
it's all just opinions they are all equally valid and there is no way
to call one better than the
Andrew C wrote 9-4-08
Yes, but where does the ability to do so come from? I'd argue that only
Humans and a few other animals have the ability to comprehend altruistic
ideals - and here we touch on self-awareness: Understanding of the self as an
individual is key to accepting others as
On 2 Sep 2008, at 23:36, Dan M wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:53 PM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: Science and Ideals.
On 03/09/2008
On 2 Sep 2008 at 19:07, William T Goodall wrote:
I think that our capacity for ethics comes from our social animal
nature but that telling good from bad comes from thinking about ethics
using our intelligence.
Per Dawkins, animal group behavior works out essentially selfish in
the
On 3 Sep 2008, at 23:08, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 2 Sep 2008 at 19:07, William T Goodall wrote:
I think that our capacity for ethics comes from our social animal
nature but that telling good from bad comes from thinking about
ethics
using our intelligence.
Per Dawkins, animal group
Dan M wrote:
No, actually, I believe that there exists truth apart from us.
Which, with the absence of any evidence, is akin to magic, but you missed my
point entirely.
That we have
partial understanding of that truth. That the Critique of Pure Reason did
a
good job defining and a
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
