[PLUG-TALK] How to be a good Democrat
russj at dimstar.net
Mon Oct 20 13:30:40 PDT 2003
* Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-10-19 23:12]:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> > I've been watching "my fellow man" for nearly 40 years. I have a lot of
> > first hand experience with how stupid the average human can be.
> > Note... I said "average". There are exceptions to this rule. However
> > small that minority might be.
> And, of course, you consider yourself one of those "exceptions"?
> This is just arrogance.
Why shouldn't I consider myself an exception? I recognize the stupidity
of others actions without any help from another being.
You do the same. You are continually telling everyone in the plug list
how they should behave. Isn't that arrogance on your part? You fail to
recognize that you may not be the keeper of the right answer. Or, if you
do, you fail to recognize that we all have the ability and the right to
choose NOT to do as Jeme says.
Everyone is arrogant to a point. Some are just more blantant about it.
> If you observe that people are generally (or "on average") stupid, then
> you should call into question your own ability to assess other people
> since you are likely to be pretty stupid, too.
The difference is I've made a study of how stupid people can be. Most
people are just going through life without a clue. Or, they are making
decisions based on some notion of a higher calling that isn't born out
in any sort of logic.
> However, you want to think of yourself as the supreme arbiter of
> intelligence and goodness, so you set your own thoughts and actions as the
> ideal and everyone else as lesser (not doing what you would) or greater
> (more able to do what you want than you are).
I AM the supreme arbiter, when it comes to my own mind. Just as you have
supreme athority of what you think about others. No one else can choose
for me, and no one can choose for you. You have to make your own
decisions. Even if you base your decisions on the work of others, YOU
are the one making your own decisions.
> It's a bullshit, unreliable scale.
It's the only one that ANY of us have.
> > > The problem is that in order to take this so-called "Social Darwinist"
> > > perspective to any kind of logical conclusion, you end up being inhumane
> > > and hurtful.
> > Example?
> Well, Russell's bit about letting people burn in their houses is a good
I discarded his statement, because he didn't back it up. It's a nice
theory, now prove it.
> Another example is allowing the poor to go cold and hungry because YOU
> don't think they work hard enough to have things they need.
Again, I have no problem with giving a hand-up. I have major
difficulties with giving hand-outs.
There are ways of staying warm and fed that don't require illegal
activity, and don't require hand outs. We've abandoned them in favor of
welfare. No, you can't live in a downtown apartment when you use them,
but your warm and fed, and you did it yourself.
It's a proven fact that people on welfare have a low self image, while
those who have gotten themselves off welfare and take care of themselves
have a higher self image. In case you think I'm talking out the side of
my mouth, I have been a recipient of food stamps and other forms of
public assistance. But, unlike many of the folks I've met, I didn't want
to stay on public assistance. I worked my tail off to climb out of the
sewer and make my own way in life.
> > > Um, no. James Madison worked very hard to keep democracy out of the
> > > Constitution because he didn't want to lose his wealth and power. As he
> > > said at the Convention, the purpose of government is "to protect the
> > > opulent minority against the majority."
> > That's one example.
> One example of what?
One example of how the framers felt. There are others. The one you've
held up (repeatedly) is the one that shows that some of the framers felt
that a full on democracy would simply mean the loss of land ownership.
We've seen, throughout our short history, that as the population of
voters increases, and more of the "majority" is represented, that he was
right in some other of his statements.
> > You use it every chance you get.
> I think people forget it all the time. It bears repeating.
Do you understand the context? It's not a stand alone statement, and the
context is important.
> > Until proven otherwise. I do just that. When someone proves (to MY
> > satisfaction) that they are a complete idiot, I treat them as such.
> And what did YOU do to prove to YOUR satisfaction that you're not a
> complete idiot?
The same thing you do to prove to YOURSELF that you aren't one.
> It's a meaningless standard.
Again, it's the only one we each have.
The village idiot does not think of himself as an idiot.
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
Is it a co-incidence that there are 42 characters, including spaces, in the following sentence:
"Answer to life the universe and everything"
More information about the PLUG-talk