|
Post by a'Lan Mandragoran on Nov 9, 2008 9:33:34 GMT -5
This country is far to big for a direct democrecy. We need things set up as they are or we litterally will have anarchy. NO government. No order and NO FREEDOMS. Anyone could litterally do anything they wanted. Human nature is to get the better of someone else. Stoner, if you think that by doing NOTHING you're doing SOMETHING, you are sadly mistaken. You do need to vote. It is a right and also moreso a duty.
That republic of Lacota thing... That's been defunked. You know why? Because it was just words. They fell apart mainly because they didn't express themselves. In the long run, you have more of a voice than you know when it comes to how this country's run. Due to your lack if interest in this country and action at the poles becase you are "not heard," you have waved your right to complain about the outcome. The flawed system exists in every political system. Every type of government is flawed in some way because it's human creation. Humans cannot create anything perfect because we ourselves aren't perfect. While I agree we no longer need the electoral college, which was put in place as a way to balance states that didn't have the population of other states and to insure a smoother vote for far flung states, and because there was no media back when this country was founded so news travled slower. It was also put into place because at that time very few people could read or write. It was needed then, it isn't need quite in the same capasity as it is now but we still need some kind of proxy like that because, until there is a 100% turn out, there needs to be a balance. If you want to make a profound difference wiht your lack of votes, convince 100% of the registered voters of the United States that they shoudln't vote. You'll find it easier to get 100% TOO vote. 100% vote or 100% no vote, either way, if we get that number, there will be change. And we need to pull those numbers CONSISTANTLY.
We are also REQUIRED to take part in the government THROUGH OUR VOTE! Don't you understand that it is not only a right but a DUTY to vote? You really do need to look at just what it is you're trying to achive by NOT DOING YOUR DUTY. Yes... I think it should be mandatory, punishable by 10 years in prison to, vote. You know why it isn't? Because that would be unconstitutuional. It's not letting you voice your opinion. But in not voicing it, you wave your right to voice any opnion against the government in my opnion. You didn't step up to change it so you can't say ANYTHING about it. In 4 years, if you don't vote for president, you've wasted your registration and sink the country further down its slide into oblivion. This is all I'm going to say on this because I believe I've already said enough. 3 posts not logged in because I was too tired to rememmber my password, and this. Stoner, honestly, don't complain about something until you have earned the right to. To everyone else, this is why I dislike politics because there's no winning or losing there's only BULL-F*******-S***.
In other news, World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King comes out Thursday. I intend to purchase it. "Mistborn" is an awsome book and so is "The Lies of Lock Lamora" and its sequal, "Res Seas Under Red Skys." Pick them up at your local library today!
|
|
|
Post by Kata Samoes on Nov 9, 2008 12:24:22 GMT -5
In light of WoW being a subtopic and my love for going offtopic to lighten the mood..
Lan, you PLAY??? What server, and who are you? lol
|
|
|
Post by stonerwolf on Nov 9, 2008 18:31:14 GMT -5
the only thing im going to acknowledge is you have no concept of human nature. what you described is human conditioning, NOT our instinctive nature. im not going to acknowledge your bullshit political points of view any further, and you shouldnt be acknowledging mine if you dont like it. In light of WoW being a subtopic and my love for going offtopic to lighten the mood.. Lan, you PLAY??? What server, and who are you? lol holy shit, not you too! Suoveihcsim on the Arathor server... but i dont have an active account, and havent for a few months now. i have 5 others, who run a small low level economy for myself, i have Enivid, the priest, running cloth and wool, Fenrisulfer, the Druid, an herbalist and alchemist, Nothanjo, a warrior, blacksmith, coalstone, a dwarven rouge, and another dwarf, a hunter, but i cant remember his name LOL. but my first pet wolf i named "mooimagerbil". lol
|
|
|
Post by Kata Samoes on Nov 9, 2008 20:40:46 GMT -5
Lol! Nice! I have a lvl 33 Human Warlock Ladonmoro (herb and alch) and a lvl 15 Dranei Paladin Hakusa (blacksmith and mining) on Sen'jin, a lvl 4 Tauren Druid who's name I forget and a lvl 4 Forsaken Priest on Dunemaul.
|
|
|
Post by a'Lan Mandragoran on Nov 9, 2008 21:43:29 GMT -5
Bladefist Horde. Level 70 Troll Shaman Ailasa, level 70 Paladin Erianna and I've got a preist and warlock in the works. Alliance cahracters are all below level 20 and are found on Kael'Thas
|
|
|
Post by Kata Samoes on Nov 9, 2008 22:50:30 GMT -5
Very nice. What build do you have for your Shaman?
|
|
|
Post by a'Lan Mandragoran on Nov 10, 2008 0:53:19 GMT -5
REstoration for now.
|
|
|
Post by KG on Nov 10, 2008 2:40:50 GMT -5
I do disagree with you on that... WE are all held accountable for our words. What we say, is part of what makes people like us or not. I like you just fine, but because of that, I wan't you to be able to explain your unusual ideas, and your passionate emotions in a way that makes sense, and doesn't alienate others, or scare them off... or just make them think you don't know what you are saying.
IT doesn't make that much difference whether you communiate effectively with me. I understand some of what you are saying because we have had many conversations on these topics. I understand some of your points, and others... well I've heard all you have to say on the subject, but I do wish you could explain it better, cause some of your ideas are so foreign and removed from my way of thinking that I really don't get it. I've asked questions, and so have you. We've explained a lot, but I really think you take some things to extrordinary extremes.
You get angry over this stuff, but I have yet to understand the extent of your frustrations or why you feel the way you do. I empath you when you are talking about this stuff, and I sense tremendous frustration, anger, and basically you just get in a tizzy over the use of money to buy things. I don't havec a clue even after all our talks why it is such a big deal. I've never met anyone before who feels negatively about money at all. Most of us like it.
I think that we all have certain things that bother us. Most of them are fairly common, but you speak of things most of us take for granted, and consider good, with the same emotion a Jew who lived in Germany during the 1940's would speak of Nazi Germany. This is 2008, and we all understand what was wrong with Nazi Germany, but in 1939, most people in the world had no clue anything was even going wrong there. I think it is important, that if you have noticed something so evil going on in our every day lives, you explain clearly what it is that horrifies you so much, cause I don't have a clue. I think since this idea is changing your entire life in ways that make you different, you shold seek to understand and put into words why exactly you feel that way, and what you feel.
Don't get me wrong. Many people are passionate about poltics. I am fairly passionate about it myself, but I have never seen anyone who feels it as deeply as you do. I don't know where this is coming from, but that emotion needs to be purged, so that you can explore it, and find out what is behind it.
Most of us can undertand why millions of dead jews, and gypsies stacked up like cordwood and burned is horrifying. We can figure out why someone would get downright hysterical or angry, after seeing that, and trying to talk about it. I admit I feel that way when I see video clips from Iraq, but if someone gets that same reaction by walking down an American street... I mean to that degree then I want to know exactly what they see that I don't. I don't understand the whole money and system thing to the degree you speak of it. Sure there are injustices in history, and in the world. Since the dawn of time people have wared over land, taken it from one another, and it is no different now in the world. I suspect cavemen did that, and I know native Americans warred between themselves over hunting grounds, because they were primarily hunters though, they didn't assign land ownership as much. The truth is that most if not all nomadic tribes in the world eventually lost their claim to the land to agrarian types. I am talking about primative times, times before any sort of system, as well as times when there were governmments and systems.
Anyway I don't understand your anxt to the degree it exists. You'd think the government killed your whole village! Yet they are alive and well at least in this life. I know from experience that when I feel that way, it is because thre is more to the topic for me, than what meets the eye. I am not truely happy till I get way past the surface of what seems to be the problem, and really understand the extent of the way I feel, and if possible the reason for it. '
Also once you do get to the bottom of your extreme anxt, I believe you might need the skills of communication to express your ideas to others. I really think there has to be some reason why you feel so passionately about this stuff, and fruther I think once you figure out what it is, there might be something there, that you DO need to express to others. Fruther if you are going to live that differently than others, by principles that make no sense at all to anyone but you, then I think you need to be able to explain them in some way or other, in case people ask, and honestly want to know. Choosing to be different is cool, at least to a degree, but if you can't understand and explain why you aren't doing things the regular way, it makes it hard for others to comprehend your motivations.
If you erode to the point you are telling people to kiss your butt, when no one comprehends your POV, then perhaps choosing another way of explaining it better, rather than getting mad. Overall what I have experienced with you is that when we talk about it, you get very passionate, angry even, and I don't have a clue why. YOU can't understand that your desire to remove yourself from money, and society make no sense to me at all. I mean I have tried to understand, but I don't see the point, and I don't see anything wrong with taking money.
From your Point of view taking money for work is somehow immoral, but I have the opposite opinion. I feel that unless you are providing for yourself, with the desire and capacity to provide for a wife and family, or help your parents when they get old, then you are being irresponsible, and lazy. That is just the way I was raised. To me it is immoral not to work. Not to earn a living to support the people you love, and help out others is not even excusable. Yet I know that you hold your moral belief as strongly as I hold mine... and I don't have a clue as to why. To me it is just nonsense that keeps you from living your life, and other than crippling you more than any handicap could, and ruining your life, which it has repeatedly doen, it solves nothing.
That is my feeling on the subject. YOu live in this world, and you have to either function or die. Working for money is as far as I know necessary in order to susrvive. There may be another way, but it is one that you will have to be able to explain the reason for... really explain it, or live with the fact no one understands, simply because we don't.
All I can say is that we can't always get what we want, and honestly you are in no way prepared to live off the land. YOu don't know how to farm, and you don't have a clue how hard it would be to live that way. YOu talk as if you are a rugged outdoorsman, but lets face it you aren't. You don't know how, even if land was available. YOu'd need a teacher, and all the people who knew how to do what you propose are pretty much dead. Fruther land costs money, and a house costs money, and the mule and seed costs money, and the feed for the mule costs money and lets face it you are going to have to get a real job if you ever want any part of your dream of living off the land to happen, cause first you have to buy the land. You don't have the skills or the materials, the physical constitution, the work ethic, or the determination, to live off the land in some sort of shack that you built for yourself. I'm not saying that to hurt you. I couldn't do it either, but I have at least heard people talk about living that way, and believe me it isnt' the carefree life you imagine. It is very very hard work, and I am not at all sure you could hold up. Real farmers get up before dawn, and they work till almost dark, or dark. They have to be physically able to do that, and have the knowhow to plant.food.
Now it is possible that you could join a commune or other group of people, but you'd have to pull your weight or they wouldn't tolerate it. That might be your best solution though, because they could teach you, and help you to get strong enough. I mean you have the potential to be strong, but it is going to be a steep learning curve at first, both mentaly and physically.
Now I thought that you were trying to explain your pov to people on line. I thought that you were trying to start a movement of like minded people, and to change the whole system to fit in with your ideals. I agree that politics might not have a lot to do with the daily life of a farmer, but on the other hand, if there is really some travesty that the rest of us have missed, and some holocaust that our system is doing that is equivilent in your mind to Nazi Germany then you have the moral obligation to explain that to people and warn them of this great evil... and for that you would have to explain it better than you can right now.
Another reason people use currency is as a motivator to work. Labor isn't fun, so people need an incentive, especially if they are to use their resources and efforts to feed others. In general there have to be rewards in order for people to make an effort. Whether those rewards are monetary, or barter, or just love, there has to be a reason to get up in the morning and go plow your field. How would you feel if you had to pay for land, and a house, and then you worked your land, and bought seed, only to give it away. Why would you do that? How could you afford to do that, and what would you get back from the people who you fed for nothing? Do these eaters just sit on their butts, or do they produce something else that you can use? How do they go about doing this for free?
There was currency long before there were luxuries in the terms we think of them. There were very few luxuries for most people before the 1950's and almost none before 1850, yet money has existed in every civilization. Sure the king might have a solid gold item or two, or he might have nicer furniture, but overall there wasn't a lot that made his life easier, other than household servants. Some were paid, but through out most of history the kings used captured slave labor, or they enslaved their subjects. That isn't about currency it is about power.
.
How does not using currency allow you to be self sufficient. IT seems to me that not working and accepting currency is the only reason you AREN'T self sufficient. It is crippling you and keeping you from being productive. How does that make you independent? Animals when they are wild, can find food for themselves profided there is something to hunt or forage. Domestic animals though are in various stages of dependency. It isn't there fault, but the averyage house dog starves when it is thrown out of the house. It can't hunt. IT gets cold and freezes because its body isn'[t used to the cold. IT doesn't even know how to find water. Most people now days are housepets. WE don't know how to survive like an animal, or even as a farmer, or human hunter.
Bravo Stoner. That is exactly true, in most situations when you exercise a freedom you trample someone else's. That is why I wince when I hear people talk about freedom and free will, especially in terms of not having laws rules or government. It is really hard to find something you can do that doesn't annoy someone else. If you don't do anything you still annoy others by not contributing. The alcoholic exercises his freewill when he goes out and gets drunk, but it is unfair to his parents, his wife, his employer, his children, and the customers and coworkers at his work place. It is unfair to other people who drive on the same streets, and it is unfair to the neighbors who have to wash the puke off their driveway. Sure his parents can disown him, his wife can divorce him, and his kids can refuse to talk to him. His boss can fire him, but all that causes pain and only because someone used their freewill to be selfish. People usually do use freewill to be selfish, either deliberately or because they don't think about it. It is better to think of others, and try to help people in whatever way you can than to be selfish in exercising free will. It is true that everyone has free will, but most people aren't smart enough or benevolent enough to handle it properly.
If anything is more compex than a blank piece of paper, most people don't care enough to understand it. It isn't that they can't it it because they are too lazy to study anything. They remain ignorant out of choice, not the lack of ability. Very few things are so obvious that anyone can just look at it and know how it works.
People have freedom to express themselves, but they don't have freedom to infringe on the rights of others. With or without the system people would be responsible for their acts of freedom. Not having a government would not make products, land or goods free for the taking. It would take a great deal of government to institute a system of sharing, just read about how the Soviet Union and China set up communism, or how Castro did it in Cuba. Lenin and Stalin built one of the most oppressive systems of government in history, in the name of equality, and the common good.
Quote:None of the problems with the government are the fault of the "system" it is people who are the problem. Voting for better people means better decisions, and better decisions make for a better system.
that's part of the problem, separation of the people of the united states and the government of the united states.
OK I agree there should be more jobs available, but if there were no government, who would we bitch to about the fact there aren't any jobs? I know that our loss of jobs is something our Government should have prevented, and they didn't even try, but you can't just expect jobs to happen either. Govenment has to stimulate jobs inside this country. How is being REQUIRED to do something part of freedom? People are required to particiapte in Jury Duty. You see how much they enjoy that. LOL People don't want to partciapte in the government. IF Jury duty and voting are too much trouble for most people, then why would they want to act as senators? It is a lot more work than either one, Also it would make the government a lot more complicated if we had so many peole writing the laws, for such a short period of time.
|
|
|
Post by Xavrael on Nov 11, 2008 2:12:52 GMT -5
I have to admit. Doesn't make a single bit of sense >.>
You want to, "live off the land"...but do you know how? You want to do what you want to do when you want to do it and you want others to be able to do the same thing?
What if someone wants to take whatever food you've been growing for such and such amount of time?
You could say that you'd just let them have it. But then they'll bring friends. but they don't want to help with the work. soon you're out of food. You starve. You die.
what about when you want to build something? A sort of...community type project. everyone chips ok. Cool. But what if someone else had planned to make something there?
Now what? If the building is done, do you just tell them, "Tough"? or do you tell them to build somewhere else? But they want to build there...what if its a home they want to build? good, clean water supply...ample things around to kill and eat (or good soil to grow things in)... good spot for all. But not really. That person is shit out of luck. No, he get's to huddle beneath a tree until the building the community wanted (your small government which you want, but don't want) is done, having to live off of left overs and whatever people would share (he's not self-sufficient, poor guy)...
Then you say you don't want a government...but you do...a small one...that changes so often, nothing will be done...
Honestly... I think governments are can be so complicated because they *have* to be to handle situations that arise. Humanity is a social species. Problems will arise. and if there's no set way to handle it, all you will have is animosity. and hell, they can do what they want, soooooo, that person can kill the other person and voila. end of problem.
and no one can say a thing because....then you'd be taking away their right to do as they want...
Humanity can often be a misleading term. Humanity *can* be violent (war is our favorite pass time >.>), *Can* be greedy, *Can* be malicious in other ways besides violence.
And without any laws to constrain them, to make them think twice about acting with impunity...who's going to protect those who cant protect themselves if everyone is off doing what they want to do (which is to say, survive?).
People could look out for each other sure...but conflict with those baser, violent people would be inevitable at some point.
Hell, a leader will probably emerge from those anti-social individuals. He'd be the boss, and then they could potentially get better organized. Which would be very bad for those who aren't (read: doing what they want).
Sooooooo.... Basically...at this point, if governments were to disappear and money too....then that'd leave humanity to.... eat each other and fight over food like back in the good ol' days (read: Stone age / paleolithic, whatever)?
yeeeeeah No.
As it stands, we have a great deal of freedom compared to other countries. The U.S. isn't perfect, thats for sure. But no country is. many other countries are worse off than we are technically.
oh. 70 warlock on twisting nether. 70 warrior on same server. Horde ftw?
|
|
|
Post by stonerwolf on Nov 11, 2008 5:15:26 GMT -5
what, y'all seem afraid to take responsibility for yourselves, and by that i mean take responsibility for yourselves AWAY FROM "authorities".
too scared to live in responsibility for your own self, wherein no one else is designated to do it for you?
Afraid that the human species is not diverse enough to meet it's own needs naturally, instead of artificially through government?
Afraid, further more, to allow anyone else the freedom to live apart from the system?
maybe you arent, but the system, and the people running it, are, which only contributes to the fear you are expressing before me.
You are afraid of a lack of government because you have no faith in your ability to protect yourself? are you afraid people will die? that is a stupid thing to be afraid of, considering nobody is immortal, and there are no rules governing when and how we'll die. only opinions.
you argue that i am wrong, and yet provide no logical reasons to back that accusation up. you can only provide reasons brought out of fear.
I AM NOT AFRAID.
i am not afraid of anarchy. i am not afraid of people trying to kill each other or me. im not afraid of people stealing to survive. i am not afraid of dying.
WHY ARE YOU?
|
|
|
Post by ~Sephity~ on Nov 11, 2008 13:50:37 GMT -5
Others are not you Stoner.
Communities are not just a human creation, many other animals do similar.
|
|
|
Post by Xavrael on Nov 11, 2008 13:51:05 GMT -5
Because dying, is bad for one's health. Dying, point in fact drives people to hatred sometimes. Hatred of their fellow man for being douche bags.
Man kills child. Parent of child kills man. Man's brother kills childs father. Father's wife kills man's brother. Etc etc etc.
If there is no semblance of law, where anything goes, who's to protect that child if the father dies first? the kid's life is forfeit?
I don't think anyone is afraid of having to *survive*. But Unless you're living on a mountain top right now watching cities burn and hear the screams of mothers who just lost their kids and are being raped because the scum of human kind is out and about playing,
Then you have no idea what you're talking about. People argue that you're wrong, because the Idea of total anarchy in a world where we kill each other for no reason is stupid and will only lead to the eventual extinction of human kind, or a mass reduction in population. Humanity would be thrown *backwards* to the point where it'd be like the dark ages again.
If you like that Idea? Fine. But I suspect, that you'll be on your own with that one.
|
|
|
Post by ShutterBug on Nov 11, 2008 23:17:01 GMT -5
Okay, this has everything to do with what started this thread: Obama, but nothing to do with what y'all are discussing right now.
I've noticed that a lot of people think Barack Obama is the Antichrist. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by KG on Nov 11, 2008 23:28:47 GMT -5
Booklover,
Obama is not the anti-Christ. The evengelical Churches are being controled and manipulated by the Republican Party. This started in the 80's as direct blackmail, involving the IRS. Jim Baker was punished for his support of Jimmy Carter, and his influence over vast numbers of people world wide became a threat to the Republican party. HE refused to roll over and just espouce everything the right wing wanted him to do, so he went to jail for tax fraud. After 11 years of unreasonable audits, and no infractions, they found a law they could twist to say he was selling time shares, which he was not, and then to apply time share laws to his partner program. It was completely insane. Then they proceeded to discredit, harrass, and attempt blackmail of every major evangelist and the several full gospel denominations, in order to force them into their pocket. Immediately after that, the Religious Right was born, and the Jesus movement died out. I know what they did within my own denomination. We had a guy in springfield which told us everything. The tax audits, the threats, Assemblies of God was forced to be more conservative, and replace their liberal leadership. Since then the Republican party controls the loudest voices of the Church, namily the televangelists. Most of the Televangelists in this country who still get air time either were conservative to start with, or have been blackmailed into submission. The Republicans also control many denominations, who used to have many liberal elements, but now are fully conservative. That is why there is so much crazy talk about Obama. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics. Republicans like to infer that they are they only Christian party, but the Democrats are also Christians. Obama is a Christian, and his moral compass seems much stronger than that of most polticians. He's never had an affair. He is a devoted husband and father, and he has always gone to church. IT is just crazy to think that he is anything but the next FDR or JFK, come along to bail us out of the hardships our economy is suffering at the hands of the republicans.
I have always been a democrat, but I never hated the Republican Party till they destroyed my church and turned our pulpits into podiums for the Republican party. I can't wait for those who committed this atrocity to bust hell wide open. Before this happened, I knew of many great churches who gave to the poor, supported huge giving ministries, including drug re-hab, unwed mother's homes, and prison ministires. They had tremendous healing services, where I witnessed miracles first hand, in people I knew, and knew for a fact were healed of deadly disease, crippling disabilities, and drug addictions. Now those same churches are nothing more than strongholds of rightwing politics, and filled with judgmental harsh people who probably wouldn't choose to heal anyone even if they still could. The spirit which brought forth the healings is no longer present in them and the current spirit in those churches makes me miserable, and I am convinced it is Demurge. Thus in my view if there is a representitive of the Anti Christ in America it is the Religious Right. It certainly fits what I know of the anti christ's mode of operations much better than any single man... much less Obama. He just doesn't fit the story. The fact is that them saying he is the anti-christ and it getting media attention as a possibility, is a sure sign he isn't. Very few will suspect the Anti Christ, and those who do will be forcfully silenced.
Sephity,
Congrats on a concice reasonable post Sephity. Two great points in less than 20 words.
Now for my long winded discussion. LOL
I'd like to point out something here. I am trying to teach a little communciation here. I am concerned with the subject matter but I am mostly trying to get across that in order to explain one's choice, no matter what that choice is, one has to first explain the facts. The better a writer or speaker, documents the supporting facts, the more compelling the point is. Fruther what might persuade one person, would possibly offend another. We often tailor our speach for the person we are speaking to.
The first point is very simple. Stoner has a right to believe what he believes, but he has no right to expect us to agree with him, especially when he can't explain his beliefs well. We do need to be polite though. It is his cherished belief, and his way of living he adhears to his own principles, as well as humanly possible within this society, and though occasinally he has stepped out of his moral boundry a bit, this is usually followed by guilt, and repentance, just as anyone with ethics occasinally breaks them, feels bad, and then stops the behavior, but what do you do when your ethics make it impossible to make a living or support yourself? When your ethics force you to be dependent on others? Do you drop your ethics, compromise your ethics, or stick to your guns?
Personally I suggest examining your ethics, your reasons for them, and taking them one by one consider if they are really necessary> What is the basis for them, and how did you decide this was the way you had to live, even if it doesn't work. How could you make it work? I am not saying abandon your beliefs, only look at them objectively and try to understand why you feel this way. You seem to take them for granted, just as a muslim takes for granted his wife should wear a burka. Is it right and necessary that the wife wear a Burka? Most western women find the Burka offensive, but his wife will accept it, and if she won'[t she will get beaten and acid thrown in her face. It seems wrong to us, but that is their way. I hate the whole concept of Burkas, but the muslims are raised with the notion, and to them going without them is wrong. Nor is forcing your beliefs on others unique to muslims either. Christians have tons of rules, which they try to impose on others. Stoner though believes in free will, but it still bothers him that the rest of the world enjoys and uses money. He feels extremely guilty and has trouble keeping himself from subconsciously sabatoging himself if he breaks his code of ethics.
Since unlike the Muslims, or the Baptists, or the Catholics, his beliefs are not part of a known system, it is bewildering to the rest of us. WE can't be expected to understand without a lot of explaination, and of course no one adhears to this system. It is like being a single nun, in a society of prostitutes for him. He is uncomfortable and repulsed, but I want to know why? Where'd he learn his distaste for money, government, and society? Why does he feel this way, considering no one else does?
Sephity's comment about animals hardly needs examples or documentation, because most of us know how at least a few species of animals interact with each other. We know that wolves, dogs, bees, whales, fish, ants, hornets, and many other creatures have complex societal habits. Even domestic cats form complex rules around pecking order, and appropriate social behavior which varies according to gender and position in hiararchy.
Penguins even gift their female companions with little stones at the begining of relationship. Is this an example of materialism, or currency? Penguin prostitution perhaps? In any case it results in mating, and with out the pebble no mating takes place. Penguins are faithful to one partner though, so it is more like providing for a wife than paying a hooker. Humans women are similar and we all want that pebble Wedding ring, which shows the guy cares and is able to provide for us and our children, before we commit ourselves... I get the feeling that is probably what the pebble means... in addition some of the more desirable female penguins get to make a choice between several stones... and it does seem that the stone has more to do with the choice than anything about the penguin, or at least the stones are what she looks at and picks as she decides... The stone will serve as a central stone for constructing a nest of stones, which the male will help her build, and thus his ability to obtain pretty stones is very important to her. Thus, apparantly materialism seems to have a lot to do with pinguin choice of mates. Since all Penguins do this we assume that this form of materalism which resembles currency in some way, is instinctive and completely natural for the Penguin.
Even though we all know examples of the fact animals have laws and societies, an interesting research paper could be made with Sephity's statment as a topic sentence. That report could be 1 page, or 1000 pages easy. You'd never run out of examples of how animals run their own societies. A lot of interesting and detailed information could be compiled about that subject.
With Stoner's side of the subject matter, there is a lot less known for sure. It isn't just that it would be interesting to have a report on animal behavior, it is absolutly necessary in order to understand, much less support Stoner's hypothesis, that much research be done on the topic of how 300 million people could live on this continent without laws or a monitary system. Also a discussion on how people being required to do certain things, can be balanced with Free will.
What I also know is that Stoner's feelings about this issue are genuine, and emotinal. This isn't just something he says cause he thinks it is cool, or he just wants to be different. It might seem bizzare to us, but it is just as real as a nun's belief in celebacy,a strict vegan's repuslion at the idea of eating meat, or a Jew's abstaining from Pork. The difference is that Stoner not only adhears to a belief system which he has sacrificed a lot for. He is the author of his strange system, and the only adhearant to it. He is also the only one who believes in his unique since of morality, at least as far as I know.
At least from my POV seems to be ruining his life. It destroys his relationships, it causes friction between him from his mom, and it keeps him at the mercy of others for support. It keeps him from having a normal life.
The things Stoner has given up for this cause are similar to a devout priest, and yet unlike the priest who has a two thousand years of tradition and theology backing up his reasons for his celebacy, and life of poverty, and self denial, Stoner has no written thesis, and his moral anxt, is completely internal.
His emotions are on the subject are overpowering, and his behavior when his "theology" is questioned, becomes angry, frustrated, and obviously distressed. Even though he is one of the most even tempered people I have ever met, it is obvious that he fighting violent emotions within, when he tries to just explain his POV on the topic... and yet none of us understand.
I have no idea where his feelings are coming from. I don't know if they are astral in origin or some kind of divine revelation, or if it is like a counter response to some phobia, like the woman who is phobic of sex becoming a nun, or if there is some psychological reason, or if it is just some combination of facts that he has observed and come to a conclusion based on something we didn't notice. I do feel this is something that needs to be understood, not only by us, but by Stoner himself. S
I feel that Stoner should write a thesis on his ideals. Something equivilent to Marx's "The Communist Manifesto, or Hitler's Mein Kampf. He needs to explore the origins and details of his theory, and the best way he could do that would be by typing it up, and orgainzing it in some systematic way. He needs to research previous civilizations, or groups who had minimal governments. He needs to document his research properly, but more importantly, he needs to detail his plan, and his rules so that he can see them together. I would be willing to help him with research, or putting his ideas in order, but Stoner is a great writer so most of it should be easy for him to get started at least.
I believe Stoner needs to see his views laid out in black and white, so that he can sort them out for himself efficiently, and perhaps explain them to others more efficiently. As it is there are some contradictions that crop up, and some inconsistancies but overall the major themes remain stable through all his moods.
I think once he had it on paper, he could study it, perfect it, and decide if it makes sense to continue living this way, or if there is some way that he could live more happily and successfully within the framework of his ideals.
It isn't fair to just shoot down his ideas since he believes them completely, at the same time though I do feel he should refine them, and work to express them in a more credible way, without getting upset or frustrated.
In general because I care about Stoner, it hurts me to see him suffer for a set of rules I don't even understand. Yet he has a right to have these opinions, and live by his own morals... unfortunately he has yet to find a way to make his life work in an independent way, within the confines of his beliefs. Thus the more he talks about taking responsibility for himself, the more he realizes that he isn't responsible for himself. He is dependent on others to trade for him within the system. When he does use the system, he feels as guilty as a Baptist at a disco dance. He has made some efforts to defy his conscience, but he obviously feels guilty when he does things the rest of us take for granted.
The bible says that the law of God is written on the heart of man, and it also says that John the Baptist was required to live by a different and more strict set of rules than Jesus Christ himself. From that I discern that sometimes people do have different morals which they live by than others. At the same time though, I have seen people make up rules for themselves that were silly impractical and made the people around them miserable. I am thinking of certain people within certain types of churches who believe people shouldn't go to movies, wear revealing clothing, go roller skating, listen to rock music, watch TV, etc. Honestly their rules make no more sense to me than Stoner's or any less sense than Stoner's for that matter. These people though, aren't alone in their beliefs. They feed off each other, though, thinking of more and more restrictions, and almost competing on how many things they DONT do, but even though they all have extensive lists, none of them adhear to even one of Stoner's rules. Actually many of their rules are opposite and spirit to Stoner's rules. At least though they aren't alone, and while they constantly make new rules, the themes remains the same. Their ideas are never completely original like Stoner's.
I have heard things that were a bit similar in character to Stoner's beliefs. I've known people who thoght Anarchy would be cool, and I have seen people who resented working for the man, and taking part in society, but not that many. I've seen bits and pieces of his belief system, in others, but I have never seen the hatred of Cash before. I have also never seen anyone adhear to a system that is THIS inconvienient so contentiously, and feel so much remorse when breaking that preticular kind of code. Guilt like that is usually limited to religious prohibitions. I have seen people who resented having to work, but I have never seen anyone before who would work hard for no pay, but the moment money is involved they get uncomfortable, obviously don't want to work anymore, and feel like they are doing something wrong.
Honestly I have never seen that degree of conviction/guilt without a religious element involved. Does that mean Stoner's anxiety about money is well founded at least for him? I have no idea, but I think something that requires this much sacrifice... well he owes himself to explore these feelings and try to find more direction in order to make his beliefs livable, and workable. In the meantime I am going to research this and see if there is anyone out there writing on the web who shares some, most or all of Stoner's views. I will look to see if any of their articles might clarify Stoner's position, cause right now I really don't get it. Of course there are a lot of things in modern society which I don't understand. Maybe I can find that he is NOT alone in his views.
|
|
|
Post by Ashira Bloodmoon on Nov 12, 2008 10:36:18 GMT -5
It's been my observation that humans tend to want to be in a state of conflict. This is why political systems that would normally work, always fail. Humans also, from what I've seen, always want more than what they have and also more than what they SHOULD have.
From the outside looking in, I cannot understand why humans aren't ever content to just have life and love. Even my people have a government and it is very complex, mostly basted on tradition than any hard set laws, except the obvious ones that hold a comunity together. Yes, Stoner, governments hold comunities and peoples together moreso than family bonds or friendships. A group of friends is just a group of friends, not an entire comunity.
Anyway, humanity's governments, as I interprit them, are more about NOT getting anything done. You can have a large complex government but no political red tape. My people's government is less about talk and more about action. Things do take time, we have a group that acts as an intermediary when we elect a new Far Seer, much like the United States' electoral college. No one has yet complained about it. Everyone in the comunity votes as well. In fact, if you don't bote, socially you've knocked yourself in the head. Everyone has that duty. It isn't mandatory by law but humanity seems to need that. In Tyrea, and indeed most fox comunities I've visited, people tend to realize that a government is needed and the people's will is what keeps the government going, rather than what I've noticed on Earth with Human government in that human governments are ALL about self propetuation, mostly because of what I've stated before. Humans always want more.
For what Stoner proposes, humanity's very nature would have to change fundimentally. Humans are naturally comunal beings. Foxes however aren't, yet we have a more civilized comunity than what I've noticed with humanity.
Take what I say as you will, I know I'm only getting part of a much larger picture. These are just my observations, nothing more.
|
|