|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted November 09, 2004 05:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If I rememeber my studies on both characters Defreni.
Mill was born in 1806 & was raised soley on his father in his young age.
Jefferson was president from 1801-1809.
He died when 1826 which would make Mr. Mill 20 yrs old.
Oh, my. How embarassing. What was that I was saying about being terrible with timelines??? And who could it have been I was thinking of that linked Jefferson with DeTocqueville? Or perhaps they (Jefferson and Mill) were both contemporary protege' of DeTocqueville himself?
Anyway, thanks guys for the lesson in being more careful about spewing out ill-recalled "facts." My mind is even more adlepated than I thought.
Quote:
I think some americans need to wake up and smell the individuality.
ROFL
That's a brilliant line, Consis. We here in our little think-tank alcove, who stop listening to the spin both parties have put on the issues and start thinking for ourselves, are all amazed at how most of the country has allowed the BS to do their thinking for them. Unfortunately, I don't see that ending any time soon...
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 10, 2004 01:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Has there ever been an election where morals didn't matter?
Oh, you betcha. Here, in the modest democratic tradition we’ve had, none of the candidates has ever mentioned morals. No politician has ever mentioned gay marriages, religious issues, abortion etc. Simply because there’re a lot more crucial things we should think about.
A clarification. I agree with bort that enlightened self-interest as a category doesn’t exist, its just another word for pure self-interest plus the brains.
On the other hand, I agree with Defreni, that in order to act according to utilitarian principles, you need the magic formula. Without that, all hypothetical scenarios bort set up cant be answered. However, my personal opinion is that people shouldn’t abandon utilitarian guidance, even in such extreme cases, of course until a better philosophical criterion is discovered.
In bort’s fisrt example (excessive concentration of happiness in few), the question to be contemplated is whether a redistribution of happiness contributors would result in even more happiness in the community. If not, of course it’s justified. A crude example: An “elite” of few have an inner need for big purple balloons, while all the others don’t. If we give them the balloons they’ll be the happiest few in the world. In this case, redistribution of the big purple balloons wont increase the global happiness, so of course concentration of the happiness in the elite is justified, because there’s no other way for the overall happiness to be even more maximized. In cases where other people have the need for the “happiness contributors”, we need Defreni’s magic formula, and the best we can do without it, is give everybody an equal share in the cake.
As for your second example. Again, I believe the rights of few should be trampled if it serves the many. (Mind you, this is the basic logic behind prisons) But the question again is, what really serves the many. If someone is unjustly imprisoned, then their release wouldn’t harm the majority, so holding them in prison only makes the prisoners feel miserable, not helping anyhow the majority, thus leading to overall decrease in happiness. Of course, there’s the fear argument you might put into play, and if there’s no other way to prevent that fear, but to lock those people up, then it can be justified. But the ultimate decision is to value the impact on general happiness of both ways, which as I said, cannot be achieved by human standards. Provided there were, imo, even cold-blooded murder can be justified.
I can only direct you to a thread where Khaelo and I in-depthly discussed this issue (utilitarianism and standards) some months ago.
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=12650&pagenumber=1
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 23, 2005 01:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Poll: 6 in 10 Ready for U.S. Woman Leader
Tue Feb 22, 6:39 PM ET
Politics - AP
By MARC HUMBERT, Associated Press Writer
ALBANY, N.Y. - More than six in 10 voters say they believe the United States is ready for a female president, a poll found.
The poll, conducted by the Siena College Research Institute and sponsored by Hearst Newspapers, also found that 81 percent of people surveyed would vote for a woman for president and 53 percent think New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites) should try for the job.
Other polls have identified the former first lady as the voters' favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination.
On the Republican side, 42 percent of voters said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) should run for the White House and 33 percent named North Carolina Sen. Elizabeth Dole (news - web sites).
The pollsters found about 60 percent of voters said they expect a woman to be the Democrats' nominee for president in 2008. In contrast, they found 18 percent expected the Republican ticket to be headed by a woman.
New York GOP Chairman Stephen Minarik said the widespread belief that Clinton will run for the job has caused many voters to think a woman will head the Democrats' 2008 ticket.
About 67 percent of those polled said a female president would be better than a male on domestic issues, but only 24 percent said a woman president would do better on foreign policy issues.
The telephone poll of 1,125 registered voters was conducted Feb. 10-17 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The results were first reported Monday in the Times Union of Albany.
So here's the question, who are the 19% who say they simply wouldn't vote for a woman? I can understand not voting for a particular woman, but making a blanket statement that you won't vote for a woman? This is one of those "well, good overall result, but nonetheless somewhat frightening" polls. Like "73% of people oppose raping 3 year olds," or things like that.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 26, 2005 08:32 PM |
|
|
It's Time...
It's time for the United States of America to freely elect a woman as commander&chief; executive branch head; President of the United States of America. Let us show the terrorists and the world that we truly are capable of the things we preach. Let us show the world that all men and women are created equal.....One Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Let the women of 3rd-world countries hear our call
Let them know we support women's equal rights
Let them have an equal opportunity to great achievments
Let them hear our vote
One vote
One message
One freedom
One peace
Let the world know it is time for change!
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 13, 2005 10:15 PM |
|
|
9% - 10% Incumbent / Troop Supporters
That is a percentage given by ex-President Jimmy Carter today on C-SPAN's "Book TV". Today President Carter said (of the 04 election) that he thought it was won primarily on the capitalization of the Republicans on a specific message. The message was meant for the so-called 9%-10% of Americans who will likely vote for an incumbent to show their support for soldiers at war.
That's where I fell into. I voted on the same notion for those exact reasons. Thanks to President Carter for his response!
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 05:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Let the world know it is time for change!
said the former Clinton supporter.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted June 30, 2008 06:19 AM |
|
|
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
