Archive for December 2009
I’m wondering if you want to revisit #10; or could you state whether you consider the Democrat Party to be evil – requiring intent and cognition?-Mike Devx Full Text here
Slavery is evil. In so far as the Democrat party can be said to be evil, they are evil for perpetrating slavery. True ethics, however, isn’t a matter of declaring something so and thus it is. Ethics is about choice. Evil is only one potential choice people can select. There are others. And the standard to judge what is or is not an evil choice is very simple.
If slavery was the only economic model available to you, and one had no means to change it for the better, and even when one tried, all that happened was failure and tragedy, then slavery would have to be maintained or some equivalent miserable status quo. But when an opportunity presents itself for a better state of affairs, one that protects the interests of more people rather than less, the human agent has an ethical duty to choose, support, or side with that new opportunity. To do otherwise, to select the easier path, the status quo of misery, or selfish interests, is evil. Because you were given a choice and you chose to go on the path that served entropy rather than the best interests of the human species. How many billions of lives will your decision have affected now and in the future. And in another 10,000 years, how many trillions of additional lives will your decision to destroy rather than create, have affected. That is the metaphysical state of evil, the consequences of it, and it is also the ethical state of an evil choice. It is not the difference over, as the Left tries to claim, a chocolate Louisiana and a vanilla one. It is as fundamental as life and death, light and darkness, creation and destruction, matter and anti-matter.
Most liberals I know are convinced they are right.
Most everybody is convinced they are right. The most violent, sadistic, serial killers and sociopaths believe that what they were doing was right, as they saw it. Fake liberals are no different in this than we are, really. There is no special title of nobility the Left can steal to make themselves morally superior. There is no absolute standard of superiority against the standard of the human condition, which cannot be abrogated by any title of nobility, intention, or deed. Unless they think themselves omnipotent godlings, they cannot reshape reality with a wish.
The only people who have doubts are those with an insufficient ability to self-deceive. Their self-awareness is too high, their sensitivity to the emotions of others is too great. They feel too much because they care too much to pretend to even themselves that it can be otherwise. How many Democrats do you know with such a quality. That haven’t defected to our side already, that is.
So is there actual intent to perform evil? And cognition of it?
Evil is not something affected by people’s neuroses. It is what it is. It, like a state of matter, exists in one particular space-time. You can change it, but it requires more than simply wishes. And for the Democrats, it requires far more than just self-deception, narcissism, and anger to make their choices the right choices.
Aristotle once said that the only way to be virtuous is to behave in a way consistent with the various virtues. Thus if one wishes to be honest, be honest. If one wishes to be courageous, practice courage. If one wishes to have integrity and compassion, practice doing things that are the result of integrity and compassion. Simply sitting around thinking about having these traits is what leads to self-deception and the tragedy of arrogance. On the other hand, one can seek virtue while believing that acting full of vice will accomplish what is virtuous. That’s impossible. One cannot accomplish the Good by doing the Evil, nor is it feasible vice a versa.
Evil and Good are defined in post-modern models as being solely about what is good for the Self. Thus what is good is whatever the burglar thinks is worth money, and whatever is bad is when the burglar can’t get his hands on money. This mentality infects much of the Democrat party, and it doesn’t matter if they are in leadership roles or are cogs at the bottom.
Their focus on “social goals” and their utter disregard for their own people allowed them to murder millions of their own.
They are only examples. People use them partially because they believe that if they have a hate-evil receptacle to hold all the manifestations of harm and corruption (Pandora’s Box) that it then becomes somebody else’s responsibility to handle such. Thus it is Pandora’s fault that humanity’s sins were unleashed, rather than the fault of the idiots that kept it in the box instead of destroying it or counter-acting it. Thus people speak about Hitler when they need to claim that their hands are free and only somebody, like Bush, can be evil.
It isn’t so, of course. Only fools and those well practiced in self-deception would believe so. When I use the example of Hitler, I am not speaking of preventing people from becoming that kind of individual. That’s impossible, short of killing them. I am speaking of not trusting in a leader that is evil. I am speaking of watching the evil within yourself because you are responsible for the harm you do when you give your power to another to use as they please. When the Left speaks about Hitler, they use it as a shield to direct all negative attributes to us and keep all positive attributes to themselves. That’s unrealistic, unwise, and of no good to those most in need.
So does it even matter whether they view themselves as evil or not, as in “requiring intent and cognition”?
It does matter, but not in the fashion you mean. Intent and cognition are objective traits as well as subjective ones. If I gave the Dem useful idiots the choice of siding with evil or siding with us, and they choose evil, they have done evil. It doesn’t matter what they claim as their justification. Either they choose the method that helps the most people and sacrifices the least, or they choose the path that helps themselves the most while sacrificing the most of others. That is an objective context. Something I can feel much as I can see and feel the mass graves of thousands. It exists in the world outside of my inner perception.
They cannot say that they intended to choose the ‘just side’, because their actions belie their claims. Their intent is to choose the path that benefits them the most, while covering it up with self-deception or outright lies.
And for those that erroneously believe the Democrat way is the best way, then they have not been offered the choice. They have not seen reality for what it is. But that’s okay, children are also naive and ignorant. But a child is only a child because they lack power to protect themselves. Once you have enough power to extinguish the lives of others, you are no longer a child. You have just become a danger to common safety, if you have the naivete and ignorance of a child, but the power of an adult.
This is very simple to resolve. Find all these Democrats that claim to believe in things like equality, truth, and justice and TEST them. In this reality, not in their mental fantasies. Test their actions and behavior. And that will judge whether they are or are not, because by their actions you shall know them. Give them the choice that they have refused to be aware of.
It seems to me that the winning argument for us is to focus on the worth and dignity of every human being, as a natural right – and for the vast majority of Americans, these natural rights are from God.
God does not exist for the Left. Killing off God was one of the first things the Communists had to do. It may seem that you have won the argument because they seemingly agree with you about ‘natural rights’ but their definition of such is not the same as yours, because they don’t have a God providing the backing for their currency. And there’s no objective standard to prove the existence of God, so there is no ‘winning argument’. The winning argument is a bullet destroying the brain, not theological arguments about religion. Because of free will
Without God as the common ground, it is pointless to argue about what did or did not come from God. Thus it is pointless to argue about whether humanity should or should not abrogate what God gave us. Human beings believe in what they see, feel, and hear. There are only two ways to convince people. Make up illusions for them to sense or make them face reality.
Ethics is all about facing reality and making the right decisions regardless of the different combinations of events or interests. An argument is just words. It is not violene or force. It is not using an overwhelming reality to prevent the resistance of an individual. It is simply words. People believe only if they agree to believe. If they don’t agree, there is no winning argument. The only thing left is force.
In conclusion, the point is that if ‘winning’ is just based upon the Left agreeing with us, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place. The issue is that they don’t agree, and the harm they are doing is such that we cannot simply ignore them. If words were enough to convince them, it would have already. The only thing left is force. This can take many forms, such as verbal or physical violence. Or it can take the form of simple reality and the consequences there of. Reality has a force all on its own.
the rights of many people will be sacrificed, inevitably, to achieve the social goal.
The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. And you’re not going to convince a predominant portion of the Left using only words.
That’s so far from what it’s always meant to be American that I can’t see how we’ve arrived at this point.
I can. That is one primary reason I know why words won’t convince the Left of anything except that they can win.
All the above would be true even if these social-goal programs *worked*.
If these things worked, meaning they were the best option available to protect the interests of the many, then human nature itself would have changed. Thus ethics would have changed because metaphysics, what is real and not real, would have changed on planet earth.
Thus all of the above would not be true if the social programs of the Left worked as advertised. Good and Evil is based, primarily, on what is or is not true. There is no compromise on this issue. It is why ethics can sometimes be situational but often times is not. Change the situation and you change what would have been good into evil or vice a versa. The system of ethics, then, is there to create a standard to judge right or wrong in a universal situation. Society easily determines what is right or wrong for each local incident. The law can do it as well.
For example, take self-defense. It isn’t self-defense if you are fighting, meaning if you were offered an opportunity to avoid the conflict but chose to stay or argue. Thus killing the other person in a fight over what music the jukebox should be playing would be wrong, because you would have chosen to stay to risk your life and to kill him, for some triviality like that, when you could have left. But let’s change the variables around a bit. What if you were given a choice to leave or fight, but if you left, you had to leave all your valuables? What if you were given a choice to leave or fight, but if you left, you would have had to leave the women to be returned tomorrow a ‘little worse for wear’? What if you were given no choice at all. What if your choice is between staying and watching those you care about be tortured and killed, or leaving them to be tortured and killed. What choice will you have then.
This is the most that can be called ‘situational ethics’. The same kind of choice, with different metaphysics and consequences. Again, change the context or basic underlying foundation of reality, and you change what would have been a good decision to leave the bar over a fight about jukebox music, to a bad one, to an evil one, and so forth.
I know the general public isn’t taught any of this. And I know why. And it’s one reason why you can’t convince the Left that they are wrong. They were taught otherwise. For them to reject their upbringing would require character traits that are not common in the human species. I’m not interested in convincing them that they are wrong. I am interested in offering them a choice between Good and Evil. And if they choose to do the wrong thing and choose evil, the consequences of their own actions become assured. Before then, I wasn’t certain of where they were. Their words claimed goodness and may have been true or it may have been an Obama lie. To determine the truth, I test them. And if they fail the test, the consequences will have become predictable and certain.
One of the more annoying Leftist comebacks is “you don’t have any better to offer”. They pretend they are adults, thus focused on a solution, so make us the challenge that we do nothing but harp on their ‘good works’.
In the case of Avatar, here’s what is better, if better can be measured in the 1000th percentage range.
Here’s something for you to think about this Christmas.
If the Left is so assured of their prowess in making their words into reality, if they are so certain in their self-righteous acclaim that violence is not the solution and diplomacy is, then why do you never see realistic or plausible examples of just such ‘diplomatic solutions’ in the cultural icons and products of the Left?
Think about that for a minute. Take Avatar as an example. If diplomacy was a solution, why make a movie blaming corporations when you can make a movie that demonstrates how diplomacy can work. Except, they don’t know how to make it work. They make claims about protecting the poor and the innocent, but they have no idea how to do so against real violence. And if the motivation is profit, then there’s your answer right there.
Contrary to Avatar’s view that natives are exploited by companies, in this reality of Planet Earth, they are exploited by power mad tyrants and those that enable them.
Obama and the Europeans want something, and in this case it means the interests of peaceful and pro-humanity activists in Lebanon must suffer. It is too limiting to think of human affairs as purely profit motivated. It is not.
I liked the post about how any American military force would have to file endless amounts of environmental impact statements and have ROE (Rules of Engagement) that make it very difficult to shoot back at the people trying to kill you. I say this because I am part of the American Military and so feel I have some first hand knowledge of those things.
One thing that I have yet to see portrayed in any movie where the natives are the morally superior heroes and the invaders are always morally bankrupt/evil, is where are the bad natives? Where are the ones that are out for themselves? The ones that don’t care who gets in their way? The ones that would not think twice about killing their own kind…just because?
Let me use a real life example. A couple weeks ago one of our patrols was out, doing a walk thru a town. It was supposed to be a nice little stroll thru this town, we’ve been there before and while the LNs (Local Nationals) there don’t universally love us, they don’t hate us all that much either. We always wave and smile and toss out candy to the kids as we walk thru (last time I gave out a stuffed bunny). We never take anything from them, no stealing of their corn or winter wheat or what not.
So our patrol is exiting the town, RTB (Returning To Base) when one of those peace loving, morally superior natives decides to shot at us with his RPG. Thankfully his aim sucked and it missed any of us. It did however hit the wall next to us. What was also right next to that wall? A little LN girl, maybe 4 years old. The wall fell on her crushing her from the waist down. The shooter ran after that and we didn’t pursue. You know what we did do though? We called in a medevac (Medical Evacuation) chopper for the LN girl.
It wasn’t our fault, we didn’t shoot her and according to the rules we weren’t allowed to call for the medevac since she wasn’t hurt by CF (Coalition Forces) fire. Guess what? I dare anyone with any kind of heart in their body to listen to her screams and not want to do anything you could to help her. So we got the bird to her in time to save her life, flew her out to our closest base with a hospital capable of handling that severe an injury.
Now I ask you, where was that native RPG shooter’s concern about innocent native civilian causualties? Where was his buddies? How come only we Americans acted to save her life?
THAT is what I would love to see in a movie that deals with natives Vs invaders issues. Any movie like that should really show it how it is and not just a 1D viewpoint. I’m probably too close to the subject matter though, most people just want to see something purely entertaining and without nasty things like that interferring with their enjoyment of it.
Essentially, any tribe, primitive or not, will want something from a military force. This can be as basic as protection or as esoteric as good relations and knowledge. Because reality is not as black and white absolute as Hollywood would like to pretend.
It’s an interesting story of what happens to social organisms in high densities.
[I need to do an article on Alpha/Beta roles, actually]
UPDATE: Included the post to Neo’s review of the same.
I’m watching Avatar now.
They mentioned that the Marines and Army soldiers once fought for freedom but are now on the corporation’s dime. And gives no background context for this, other than to make the narrative claim.
This is called the brain dead cult of the Left, where declamation is the same as reality and truth.
In the jungles of the world, the ‘security detail’ consists of one person armed with an automatic, against known threats sporting natural armor plate. This, again, is an example of brain dead emotionalism, aka Liberalism, fake liberals, and the Democrat party. For maximum penetration and survival against large indigenous dinosaurs, one must carry calibers in excess of .50, and perhaps in excess of 1.0 caliber.
The Left are so proud of the ‘evil power of the gun’ that they think making opponents immune to its effects is a ‘smart thing’. Something courageous, even. And they choose the ‘machine gun’ because it is the most ‘scary totem’ of the Left. Idiots, again, and hypocrites to boot. Those that talk about refusing a life of violence, makes use of the life of violence to make bucks, but stupidly.
And the movie takes pains in the first five minutes to emphasize that the mercenaries are, well, mercenaries hired by the Company and not part of any military.-Ace’s review
It takes pains to say that all these Marines and Army people who once fought for freedom, are now fighting on the corporation’s dime. Not part of any military? Or just not part of any military worth respect?
Don’t be left clueless by the propaganda, if you don’t know how to replicate it.
I finished watching Avatar.
It’s a bad story because neither the good guys nor the bad guys are what you would find in reality. Could there be a government backed private group that exploits the natives for their natural resources? Sure, we call one such organization ACORN or the SEIU unions. They are not unthinkable, you know.
But I’ve never heard of a for profit organization, that wasn’t backed up by an ideology or government power plays, who would risk so much for so little. Most corporate sharks would cut the lifeline on a project if the estimated costs exceed 10% of predicted values, let alone 50% casualties or more than that.
How much is this unobtanium? Worth a 5 year expedition and the research/development as well as the logistics of transferring fuel, munitions, maintenance, and skilled warriors from one solar system to the other? Yes, inexcess even. That means those assets are pre-planned to be able to net the proper profit margin. So what gives the corporate shark here the thought that he could expend ALL his munitions and military firepower, and not even GET THE GOODS? What kind of fauking idiot does that when his motive is profit. Unless you completely wipe out all resistance and life, there is absolutely no point in devoting even 50% of your total armed forces to a mission. Let alone the needless and wasteful expenditure of munitions and fuel for what was in the end, some guy’s personal crusade against trees.
In case these idiots hadn’t noticed, when you send an expedition that takes 5 years of cold sleep to get there, there are NO QUARTERLY reports. The stock holders would have been prepared to write this expedition off as a complete loss, for they won’t hear anything about it for a minimum of 10 years. And if they had light speed communications, they would have been in contact with the natives with a small scouting force for years before the advent of any military expedition, which means that the Gone Native guy would have already existed.
Now it makes sense that if you are going to devote this much investment on the hope of getting unobtanium, which sounds profitable, then you will want to back it up with as much military force as you can, to prevent competitors, accidents, internal dissension, and hostile natives from crapping on your investment. That is just common sense. But those forces are there to…. roll the drums, protect the MINING EXPEDITION. They are not there to make war on the natives and they sure as hell aren’t there to bomb the natives with ’shock and awe’, while leaving their own base completely Fing defenseless.
They are there for the ore, period. How they get the ore should not matter. The corporate sharks would have been first and foremost concerned about mining the ore. And if there is a threat, the corporate shark would refuse to attack and demand that military forces be held to protect his hide. If some idiot was dumb enough to try to get people to attack the natives, there would be huge internal dissension, because this is a corporate contract, not under military discipline except informally.
Even at the least risk scenario, the corporate executives would have balked at expending so much munitions to blow up a tree, knowing that the natives will commit to an eternal insurgency against any mining operations that occur there. And while you can protect your helicopters and armored exo skeletons from arrows, that doesn’t mean some guy mining or some machinery left unattended, won’t get sabotaged, and your precious profit margin marginalized. That is the truth of all insurgencies.
While it is true that often times Democrat and Leftist profit motivated organizations are apt to overstate the power of the gun and understate the power of the spear, amongst the Marines and combat troops this adage is accepted as true. There are no dangerous weapons: only dangerous people. Even if they were convinced that they would take no casualties from attacking the natives, they would still know that so long as the natives lived in a state of hostility towards the humans, they would be a continual threat. Thus any military campaign designed to expel the natives, would also attempt to exterminate as many as they could, once they fled their former home. And that would have required more expenditure of munitions and fuel, which corporate sharks aren’t apt to be so happy about.
If, as an alternative, you had already invested a butt load of money into more than 3 Avatars, why would the company bean counters not wish to utilize this investment to its maximum potential? When offered a diplomatic solution, they would not allow the military security officer to make the calls and they would certainly not undercut their diplomatic representative by trying to bulldoze him over. Bean counters, in case people hadn’t noticed, are BEAN COUNTERS. They don’t care about threats or reality, so long as their money is accounted for. The very last thing they would authorize after shelling out cash for such expensive projects, is to shell out even more cash for military fuel and munitions so that they can blow up the efforts of the Avatars. To a certain extent, the distance from civilization allows the CEO some freedom of movement, but when he returns, he knows he had better have a crap load of unobtanium. And the only way to do that is to preserve the forces he has to protect the mining operations, because THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES HE WILL GET for the next 5 some odd years. And if he calls home for more, he may just be sacked for incompetence.
This is why you shouldn’t have Leftist Hollywood directors plan the defensive strategy of your nation. Or the offensive strategy. Or the logistics train. Or anything else for that matter. They are stupid as unobtanium. You could put a gun to their heads and blow their brains out and they wouldn’t lose much thinking capacity.
Oh, btw, tribal chiefs are made tribal chiefs because the people of the tribe trust in the tribal chief not to screw them over. That means they trust the clan leader to protect the interests of all (Unlike the black Obama African chief, elected to just protect his own family’s interests), and the chief isn’t there because he is strongest of all but because he is seen as the best and most honest person that is also wise enough to steer the clan through troubles with other clans, the environment, famine, etc. That means if a freaking tribal chief ever came across some guy from the “Sky People”, he would first and foremost begin talking to him and attempting to learn as much as he can concerning the motivations and capabilities of this potential new threat as he can. He’s not just going to get somebody else to handle him and then sit on his thumbs for the next 3 months.
Leftists think these noble savages aren’t interested in data on the enemy or diplomatic efforts, because they see noble savages as …. primitive but noble. But they suffer the same facts of life as the rest of us. Food, shelter, famine, infant mortality, war with other tribes, death to predators, etc. You think this kind of life makes leaders dull like a stone age savage? That’s a Leftist conceit, where they believe their civilization and culture gives them ‘the right to rule’. Primitive societies know that you need a strong and wise leader, or else your clan will starve and die out.
But let’s just say that the CEo knows more people and competitors are going to come, so he is feeling rushed to a ‘military solution’ to the Native Problem. So the natives, by first ignoring the threat then blowing up the threat, now must face the next human expeditionary force. And this is to the benefit of the natives… how? They would have been better to achieve a peaceful solution in order to get as best a bargaining position as they can, when the next fleet of human invaders come in wanting a piece of the land. And the CEO on the spot would have been better to reach a peaceful business deal between trusted parties, rather than expending force in a gamble to quell the locals, which means he will be militarily weakened once human competitors come. And if you don’t believe human competitors won’t murder, sabotage, and assassinate the opposition in a system 5 years out from the nearest human base, you haven’t seen how humans act in the jungle of LA or any other slum.
This is the point, however. The Left doesn’t know how to solve your problems. They only know how to create them, but can’t get the solutions that will benefit both. Force, in the end, is their only answer. Their way, or the highway. Trusting in the Left to protect your interests is like voting for Obama to make America better. You’d have better chances taking your dick and slicing off a piece hoping that in the future they can reconstruct while paying you money.
Addendum: if Earth is really divested of plant life because ‘humans killed Gaia’, then the biological cornucopia on Pandora would be astronomical in worth. More ingredients for pharmacological products nets immense market value, because humans want longer and better life. And the elites and those with money, most of all. The idea that Pandora’s ecological life may be worth more than the ore itself, is not a farfetched idea. At least not if your motivation is profit.
And guess what, the investment in a mining operation on a jungle world of hostile natives is far more than an operation designed to harvest ecological byproducts.
But people can believe the future world of humanity is still only interested in metal and what’s in the ground, like oil, if they wish. It’s a product of their faulty education and imagination, however. Not worth the cost they paid for it in the end.
Let’s see what else do I have in mind…
If your son is bored with the movie, Book, then educate him on the reality behind the movie. Even a feckless Leftist piece on their own stupidity, can have entertainment worth when viewed a certain way.
The flying scenes were entertaining and so was the aborted attempt at diplomacy, although it cast less light on the human force than on the humans directing the movie.
This is interesting.
To a certain extent, this reaction isn’t so much British as it is part of the sheep philosophy. Because the psychology of using violence in defense is the same as the psychology of using violence for predation, the author here feels uncomfortable and thus equates murder with self defense. That is, of course, an inaccurate conclusion.