What is Digg?115 Comments
- christianboutin, on 01/08/2008, -5/+41"War is a quarrel between two thieves too cowardly to fight their own battle; therefore they take boys from one village and another village; stick them into uniforms, equip them with guns, and let them loose like wild beasts against each other."
Excellent quote. - BrapAllgood, on 01/08/2008, -2/+34Beware polar absolutes; they are a simplification by nature. The world is always a lot more complex than black and white.
- speerross, on 01/08/2008, -1/+26You've done a good job or making your opinion worthless. Let's take a short look at what Liberalism is:
"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal."
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government.[2]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Now that sounds just really ***** doesn't it?
I now want to take a look at what Liberalism has achieved:
Western LIBERAL democracies, meaning European democracy coupled with Capitalism, America is similair enough to be included and was founded on Liberal ideas that came from the French Revolution
The form of Capitalism present in America and predominantly (It's coupled with weak socialism) Europe too is part of Liberal philosophy.
In my country (The UK) it was the Liberals who first opened up the idea of electoral reform in 1832 which, while not far reaching enough, allowed many more people to vote. This opened up a century of reform which, while the Torys (Conservatives) were involved, was driven primarily by the Liberals until the rise of Labour (Socialists).
***** THOSE DAMN LIBERALS AND THEIR FEELING-BASED DECISIONS! - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -10/+27Excellent link from an excellent source.
- BrapAllgood, on 01/08/2008, -7/+24GO AMY! Niiiiice. :)
My name is Brap Allgood...and I approve of this message. - Kent4jmj, on 01/08/2008, -1/+15Who or What will inform your heart or mind? To follow something means having something to follow.
Which means our hearts and minds are made in such a way as tthat they need to be filled.
We all, every human on the face of this tortured earth, follow our hearts and minds, even Bush.
That is not the problem. The problem would seem to be a correct discernment of what to give our hearts and minds too. - _jinx_, on 01/08/2008, -1/+14Think for yourself, Question authority...
Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.
Think for yourself.
Question authority.
Timothy Leary - blindhammer, on 01/08/2008, -1/+13The heart and the mind are often at odds.
- magnoliasltd, on 01/08/2008, -0/+12Think with your heart and mind! words with alot of wisdom.
- mandagrrl, on 01/08/2008, -6/+18Bravo !!!
- jurnei, on 01/08/2008, -9/+21Vote with your heart and mind.....vote Kucinich.
- blindhammer, on 01/08/2008, -3/+13Rationality and logic are derived from the mind rather than the heart.
Religion is not rational nor logical.
Republicans typically represent the most religous fundamentalists in this country.
Follow this logically, and you'll note that you are wrong. - ordig, on 01/08/2008, -1/+11I guess we need a zen president.
- notque, on 01/08/2008, -0/+9Sacrificing two people to save three is not justified. It would have to be an excessive difference, like the entire human race of future generations (cancer).
My position doesn't change with a criminal, because it wouldn't be right, and criminals are the same as other human beings. Their death isn't better or worse.
Ask me some real world questions, and I'll try to answer them from my point of view.
I don't take this as an attack at all. This is what real discussions look like, and it's rare to actually have one on digg. - jenniferstruth, on 01/08/2008, -3/+12HEY GREAT ARTICLE. i had to redo my profile because i got banned. it is me jennifer4peace. addme as a friend :)
Peace, Love and Respect,
Jen - blindhammer, on 01/08/2008, -0/+9Your hear and mind approves, but perhaps others do not. People are different.
Classic example -- if you could sacrifice a hundred random humans in the world to cure cancer, would you? The mind should said YES but the heart should said NO. In otherwords, utilitarian judgments are often at odds with each other. - notque, on 01/08/2008, -0/+8Abortion is certainly a tricky one, but I think pretty clear as well. Stem-cell research I don't think is tricky.
I understand what you're saying, I'm not trying to say that every single issue is cut and dry. I'm just saying on the vast majority of issues there are very basic things that you do.
A method of torture would not be justified regardless of the "value" for information. Limiting a human being to nothing but pain to coerce them into information is not a reasonable option regardless of who it may save.
I would not kill 10 innocent people for a 100% chance to save a hundred. I also don't like the use of the word "innocent" as it's completely meaningless in this context to me.
I also don't think I should decide the line. The population needs to decide that line. We need direct control of decision making. I think as a population we can make these decisions on are own just fine, and work them out like we are right now.
Every war has been called a preemptive war. Every war has been undertaken out of "defense". The most aggressive wars are always labeled defense.
The clear goal is to have facts that you can use scientific methods to determine, and make decisions based on that. In the U.S. we don't have that, instead we have propaganda from unified sources.
So the first thing we need is a variety of sources in which to make logical decisions. Any choices based off propaganda from the Unified mainstream sources are going to be wrong because the propaganda makes critical assumptions that are wrong.
One consistent assumption is that we own the world. You have to back up and question those assumptions. Once you do that, foreign policy clears up pretty quickly. Do no harm. Stay out of conflict unless there's a massive intellectual/moral justification for it backed up by facts, lively discussion, and ultimately the population deciding what to do. - blindhammer, on 01/08/2008, -1/+9I don't understand. "Liberals" can rationally conclude that providing education and health care to those that are not born with a silver spoon is actually better for society, in the longterm.
Just because you cannot rationally comprehend something, does not mean that others cannot. - blindhammer, on 01/08/2008, -1/+9Oh, that's fine. But many Americans would actually consider your "heartless" for sacrificing innocent life for medical knowledge. Hence, the stem cell research debate.
It just leads to a slippery slope argument. How many lives do we need to save? If we sacrifice two people to save three people, is that justified? What if the third person is a criminal or someone else society does not approve of? Does that change your position?
I agree with your no-harm principle but I have found that there are problems in the "real world" with it. For instance, who defines what is "harm?" How do we measure harm? Some people have a higher threshold for "harm" while others find absolutely everything another person does to be harmful in some capacity.
Questions like this invariable leads to policies which are neither rational nor compassionate.
And note, I am not attacking you personally -- I am just challenging you. In some ways, we agree. - notque, on 01/08/2008, -4/+11When? People act like politics are complicated, but if you can get past the propaganda it all seems vary simple. Foreign Policy. We need to stop committing war crimes, and coups against democratically elected leaders.
My heart and mind approve. - notque, on 01/08/2008, -2/+9I'm fine with that example. My heart and mind both say yes.
let's take another, intervention.
You follow the do no harm principal. If the only actions I can take will do harm, I should do nothing at all.
Seems fairly clear. - notque, on 01/08/2008, -2/+9And why do they have to be a random hundred human beings? I'm pretty sure we could find 100 suicidal ones willing to do the work.
- notque, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7But you have to use real world examples. In this case, you could limit the situation so that the moral issue is much slighter. I think that's what you do in all situations. If you can't limit it, you weigh it and make tough choices, but justifications for violence of any type require a high level of evidence, and a very tough justification. Curing cancer meets that I think pretty clearly.
- blindhammer, on 01/08/2008, -1/+8Real world examples.
Stem-cell research was one. Abortion is another.
In foreign policy, we run into the same arguments. If you could, theoretically, develop a method of torture that was very painful (perhaps fatal) but reliable, would it be justified to gather information to prevent an attack somewhere? According to many hawks and those in the Bush Administration (and Rudy) yes, it would.
There is a certain amount of logical sense to this -- in the end, you are saving more lives than destroying-- but it leads to another slippery slope. Soon saving a hundred-thousand lives is reduced to saving ten-thousand lives, then one-thousand, then one-hundred and so on.
Then we factor in probabilities, which exist in the real world. Would you kill ten innocent people for a 25% chance to save a hundred-innocent people? Where would you draw the line. And who are you to decide where the line is?
There's the preemptive war strategy. It makes logical sense to strike a country that is going to strike you. From a military sense, it also makes sense; you can adjust your strategy and logistics to minimize your own casualties and maximize the casualties of the enemy, which will invariable lead to the conflict ending sooner rather than later. - notque, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7You got banned?! That's you, emobrat, 0boy, polymath22, cg234 (some number, Greg Davies)
- heartcoldfusion, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Every dictator and every despot and psychopath who ever hurt someone was following their heart and mind. The problem is that people's hearts and minds are rarely in sync, and if you can figure out to sync them up, then you'll have either eliminated free will or ushered in a an era unheard of on Earth.
Good luck, I'm sure your heart will guide you on the right course. - notque, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Wow.... ;)
- Uncle_Joe, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Hopefully we'll see the tide turn after the election.
- sHockz, on 01/08/2008, -1/+7as much as i wish what you speak of could occur, it never will. we would have to be a unified body of people with common ideas and goals that everyone was seeking. The only time this will happen, is when the human race is threatened by extinction. only then will people be able to cast their differences aside, only to save their own ass's.
now, if we were to live by what you say, and were able to accomplish that before some traumatic event threatens to wipe humanity off the earth, then we might have a chance as a race. Unfortunately, people view peace, prosperity, and the continuation of the human race as less and less important.
There is no such thing as being truly free in the world we live in. You would have to be the only human left in order to be truly free. Think about it.
if humanity makes it off this planet, we will spread through the universe, multiplying and growing larger as a race. soon enough we will be sucking resources dry from the nearest planets that can sustain life. humanity will engulf the universe like a plague until their is nothing left to consume. you can almost view humanity as a cancerous cell that keeps growing until is kills its host. - inactive, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Excellent post! Right on! I'm sure even Hitler was following his heart and mind, but the problem is what his heart and mind were filled with.
- blindhammer, on 01/08/2008, -1/+7The "random" part of my example was a gotcha. If they are random, they are innocent and not tied to the results. Innocense often makes utilitarian arguments harder since humans naturally value life (in general).
- DarkRabbit, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6I condone this message... with all my being.
- _jinx_, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6what you said is so true but yet so sad.. but i believe!
- christianboutin, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6I see your point. And I agree with it. The quote is great and appropriate within the context, but it's not entirely accurate. The game of Risk in which cowards send others to die for their own interest is really more to be associated with "major powers". Or at least "equivalent powers". For example, the seven years war, the first world war. Same applied to the cold war. But that, in my honest opinion, doesn't apply to wars in which there is a clear aggressor with overwhelming force, in which it is more difficult to call defending side pawns on a chess set. Wars like most Indian wars in the Americas, most US interventions in latin America, the Hungary revolution of '56, and the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would fall into that category.
- blindhammer, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6*scratches head*
Well, I wasn't expecting THAT. :) - CPoe, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5The "Right Thing" is the problem. People rarely do things that they think are Bad. Its a perspective problem. At the risk of being called a kook- leave the mind behind and let that which observes the mind guide you.
- 10lbhammer, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5"Moooo Chau (NevvME)
A person who joined Digg on January 8th, 2008" - Albionshores, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5All these roles and what-if scenarios play on your actions on something else. If you reach a conclusion that an individual has no right to force another's actions against their will, then the answer to each scenario is the same. From that point on answering hypothetical questions can be like shooting fish in a barrel.
"if you could sacrifice a hundred random humans in the world to cure cancer, would you?"
NO
"who defines what is 'harm?'" as you are accountable for your actions - you do. Each individual.
Stem Cells - What ever you consider however you can't force another's actions so if somebody wants to conduct stem cell research then that is their call. So should it be banned? No - you should just not participate yourself if that is how you feel. Same for abortion.
Would you sacrifice 3 people to prevent 300 being killed?
300 being killed is a tragedy and I would have no part in it but presumably you are not the one killing them which would be you forcing an action on someone else - in this case death. You are in no way responsible for the fate of those 300 people. Circumstance or 'the killer' is. But at the same time the principle is just as strong with the 3 people. You can no more force their actions than I can 300 people.
As Notque argued if they volunteered to die to save others fine no problem - but when the argument is taken 'ad absurdum' it may seem a calleous response. Kill 3 people to save 300? No - I can only as an individual be accountable for my own actions. I'd be killing the 3 in the present on the understanding that an event in the future is going to be averted an event that may only presumably occur. Therefore I'd be killing 3 people on an assumption - still sure 3 dying is preferrable to 300?
In not dealing with scenarios out of your control/in the future and by stick to preconstrude principle and the heart will follow the mind; and the mind will follow the heart, and they will dictate in unison to moral arguments. - Truzseeker, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Except for a few shills, quite an audience Amy .. dugg !
- CaptainNoPants, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6Wow they're taking a bit longer to get rid of you today than usual, I guess the admins must be busy. The sad part is you don't even realize how ridiculous you sound. You need to get rid of your digg obsession.
- BrapAllgood, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Ah...but then there's the issue of *who's* history. I try to collect as many versions as I can find, as they all bring forth new light. Just sayin'...he who teaches the history controls the perceptions of those he teaches....
- Mutton, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Whoa, an actually good blog post on Digg. Dugg.
- Kent4jmj, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6But with out an Objective Standard how does one discern between Truth and propaganda/lies?
- notque, on 01/08/2008, -2/+7So removing propaganda and lies is of the utmost priority.
- nblsavage, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5don't be dense
- samdu, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Because people have become far too amused with tearing everything around them down to notice what actually makes them happy.
- notque, on 01/08/2008, -2/+7Like any issue, there are levels. It's instructive to start with something like the slaughter of the Native American Indians.
There was propaganda at that time, but you can build a fairly accurate picture of what happened. You look at multiple sources, you look at primary sources if you can, and you build what happened.
You should always stay away from government pronouncements. Same with leaders.
You build a picture of an issue as you would in science. History isn't just a bunch of conflicting stories. They are certainly there, but you can determine truth.
History also gives you a ton of examples to work with. - TheHim, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4I agree, free spirits have contributed more than anyone to this world, for they have something to contribute that is unique, possibly new. I've been in such heavy conflict with myself, and late in the game i now realize that my attempts to forcefully "align" myself to the world around me, had caused me to be the exact opposite of that. The difficult part is that very few people encourage you, "not" not listen to them and to follow your own heart-mind, so liberation happens when grant yourself that freedom that nobody granted you.
Think about it: by instinct you wouldn't encourage anyone, who's going beyond your horizon. The O.K. to go at it will never come from others, but from you. -
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is