A substantive report & analysis on the Iran nuclear topic for those interested. It's long so set aside some time but worth the read.
I'm not attacking Romney or saying people shouldn't vote for him over this. I am analyzing his strategy and pointing out that it is bad. Much like rushing libraries in CivRev doesn't make you a bad person, it merely makes you a bad player.
EDIT: Then again, the uptick & sliver may be so inconsequential as to not be worth spending any additional energy on. I'm sure the political advisors have looked at it 9 ways to Sunday regardless. Probably at this point, if Mitt tries to appear "genuine", that will actually do more harm than good by looking like yet another flip-flop. At least if he stays buttoned-down through the election, he'll at least be consistently boring.
i don't think you can find the solution that is highly probably best for everyone either.meh, you dont need to be sure - some things are just highly probable.
you're right when you say that nobody has to listen or care. but we do so anyway since ever and will forever.
but i don't quite understand you. i thought you don't commit to any strict laws of the universe either. you make it sound as though you think there are, in fact, unshakable truths.
i don't see how relativism must necessarily be intertwined with the philosophy of language but let's take it from here.It's simple: internal states are as much a part of reality as external states. Since reality in each case is external to language, then language, for the skeptic, is no more applicable to those internal states as they are so-called external reality. In other words, psychology should be 100% as mythical as physics or astronomy for the skeptic. Hence skepticism destroys even its subjective connections.
do you mean that language can never accurately describe reality when you say that reality is external to language? if so, i think you make the mistake of thinking that because there is no absolute reality the skeptic or relativist must believe in nothing or hold everything to equal value. of course, he can still value some truths over others but he is aware that those value relationships he construes are relative. this is the same argument i was making about cultural relativism. we shouldn't debase it to value judgments that posit that every culture deserves the exact same treatment. theoretically, cultural relativism doesn't necessarily have any effect on national relationships at all.
without that we would go back to slavery and (more) misery. why so bitter? pursue a marxist society instead. its realization would be a lot more fun for everyone and that includes you.One problem in American society is that we have been influenced a great deal by John Locke's political theory, and we now accept it as given that everyone is born with the intrinsic right to be free and equal. To me this is on par with religious indoctrination.
In my view, power intrinsically exists within the universe, therefore, ultimately, it can not be destroyed. That's why any such utopian ideals which are ultimately based in the annihilation of power are impossible to achieve or realize. They are contrary to the nature of the universe, which we do not control with our minds, despite any arguments of whether the universe actually exists or not, we don't control it in either case.
hmm hard to see how one can make any decisions in life if it works that way. we would all be buridan's ass.i don't think you can find the solution that is highly probably best for everyone either.
well i am not seeking romney's execution, just saying that it is reasonable to think he may be an arse if he acted as an arse as a child and that you might take that as a reason not to vote for him. its way past the statute of limitations for his assult on hte boy - but also a crime against a child should be taken seriously and be seen to be taken seriously.
all we can do is make qualified assessments. human relations can't be accurately calculated like a math assignment.hmm hard to see how one can make any decisions in life if it works that way. we would all be buridan's ass.
Like with a union oil prices are manipulated by the suppliers through controling the amount they all produce in any given period.
That involves consideration of the various effects of cutting supply (for example encouraging alternatives to be developed, slowing the global economy and thus reducing demand) and also by the increased incentive for others to produce more if they cut (eg a country with spare prodution capacity like saudi arabia would have an incentive to raise production if iran reduced it)...
Now Iran could threaten to nuke saudi arabia if it did that.. but if saudi arabia was to give in to that sort of threat they are on the verge of handing their country over to iran (iran effectively becomes their finance minister, and as i understand it they really really hate each other)... worse yet there are lots of countries well out of their reach that would free ride off their increase in the price of oil...
what do they have a say in? Best you can say is they get to shell south koreans every now and then with a degree of impuity. Even the south koreans, however, dont have infinite paitience.i think it totally works for north korea. they have a say in almost anything there. who would be afraid of them if what they had was only a military.
they pursue nukes because it helps them to stay in power or improves their power - thats how they work. hence it is bad for the people even aside from being a waste.the north koran elite would have probably just spent it on other military expenditures, more laughable space rockets, or 12 extra ponies for kim sung-durr, etc.
qualified assesments are calculations like a maths assignment.all we can do is make qualified assessments. human relations can't be accurately calculated like a math assignment.
Last edited by ScottieX; 05-15-2012 at 12:16 AM.
take the library discussion elsewhere!!
I heard a great quote tonight from the movie, "Killer Elite":
"Life is like licking honey from a thorn."
My earlier point was not to indict practical marxism. As you pointed out, that is obvious, so clearly that wasn't my point. I was also aware of your devotion to theoretical marxism (which was closer to my real point). It was to point out how everyone, even the vaunted relativistic idealist/absurdist, etc..., as I have always asserted, when you strip away all the words, all the reasoning, etc... what are you left with? The naked truth that core beliefs define every single person on the planet, without exception. In your case, you have some fundamental ideals which have to-date, no evidence whatsoever of working in reality as theorized (in fact there is enormous evidence to the contrary) & yet you still believe in your heart in the theoretical marxist vision. That's exactly what I'm referring to: that residual purity of conviction & belief despite all practical evidence to the contrary. THAT was my point but apparently it was so obvious, you seemed to have missed it.
In other words, you too are a creature of blind faith, devoted to your core beliefs, as we all are ultimately at our cores. The difference? Some come to realize this & face the truth of it, some don't. Simple as that. I was not indicting your belief in marxism but rather using that to make a larger point.
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-15-2012 at 03:04 AM.
Love the South Park episode when everyone is in hell and they are asking what religion was the right one
Hell director: "Mormons, Mormons is the answer you were looking for, Mormons."
People: "Ahhhhhhhhhhhh man...".... Ohh, classic :>)
if you ain't got it by now then you just ain't getting it.
content is overvalued!if you refuse to follow the laws of logic [...] No one can force you to accept the rules of logic [...] You willfully refuse to accept this obvious logical truth [...] your willful deluded construction [...] you don't possess the personal moral purity of your convictions to admit your willful delusion [...] I find that puzzling myself [...] Are you ashamed of your beliefs and/or find them unsatisfying
this village has lived anarchist communist for a long time: http://www.spectrezine.org/marinaled...r-world-exists
not saying that it's perfect but i think examples like these directly prove that it's not impossible. perfection will never be reached but we can always advance societally. the worst argument is that what we have now, a no longer really functioning form of capitalism, is the best possible system and the teleological end of the development of human society.
Zef attempted to address these issues with your reasoning, also unsuccessfully. As you so eloquently stated, you just ain't getting it.
You will forever be logically illogical, yet in your own mind be supremely logical. So be it.
Pretty interesting. Practical anecdotal evidence that habitual self-indulgence can lead to relentless degradation of our bodies (perhaps our lives & our society too, though that's my own extrapolation).
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-15-2012 at 10:22 AM.
Last edited by Zefelius; 05-15-2012 at 12:00 PM. Reason: i wish i could be more like el thrasher
On a side note, I've sometimes wondered what 2K thought about this thread when it first came out. Technically speaking, it's probably against the rules to have these kinds of discussions in the Civ Rev forums.
About half a year ago I picked up Dead Space 2 and loved it. I also thought it was pretty hard. I've started playing it again just for the hell of it and now, obviously, it's much easier.
Playing it again reminds me of a recent article I read on habit, and how there's a lot more neural activity in the brain when we first learn something (like a rat does in a maze) than after we've mastered it. In a way that seems obvious, but I think we could be easily deceived into thinking we're awfully smart when we do something quite well, like when we've mastered a video game. Since we do better after we've played something many times it may reinforce our ego, but we learn more and become smarter if we pick up new habits, master new games, and the like.