I find that sentences with instruction on how to feel and act are generally not condusive to female conversation. In fact, I feel they strongly push me away.

Owning a statement with a phrase like "in my opinion" is a wonderful tool, I think. It lets people with strong ideas claim their ideas as they own, yet brilliantly lets others choose to disagree. This is why I try my best to use this function of language.

Bri

Quote from: Brianna on March 15, 2007, 11:31:15 PM
I find that sentences with instruction on how to feel and act are generally not condusive to female conversation. In fact, I feel they strongly push me away.

Owning a statement with a phrase like "in my opinion" is a wonderful tool, I think. It lets people with strong ideas claim their ideas as they own, yet brilliantly lets others choose to disagree. This is why I try my best to use this function of language.

Bri

I avoid stating opinion, as it were.  I prefer state observations of reality.  Rather than saying, "Well I think such and such is this" I will say, "This such and such bull*** just ****ed an entire nation out of its independence/dumped toxic waste into a canal/killed massive amounts of civilians/lied to the public and anyone with a speck of common sense can blink twice, rub their eyes and see that this is completely unacceptable."

When you know the difference between right and wrong, 'arguments' become very simple affairs.

~ Blair

Quote from: Brianna on March 15, 2007, 11:31:15 PM
I find that sentences with instruction on how to feel and act are generally not condusive to female conversation. In fact, I feel they strongly push me away.

Owning a statement with a phrase like "in my opinion" is a wonderful tool, I think. It lets people with strong ideas claim their ideas as they own, yet brilliantly lets others choose to disagree. This is why I try my best to use this function of language.

Bri

OK then.

It bothers me when people judge a candidate I support not because they disagree with his positions on issues, nor because they dislike the character shown by his actions, but because they don't like the party he belongs to.

In fact, it offends me greatly when people say that other people, thousands or millions of people, are "in the thrall of Lucifer", based solely on a label that they apply to themselves, or that others apply to them.

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 09:46:41 AM

OK then.

It bothers me when people judge a candidate I support not because they disagree with his positions on issues, nor because they dislike the character shown by his actions, but because they don't like the party he belongs to.

In fact, it offends me greatly when people say that other people, thousands or millions of people, are "in the thrall of Lucifer", based solely on a label that they apply to themselves, or that others apply to them.

Its called a "sweeping generalization".  It makes life a lot easier, since you no longer have to deal with many people individually.  Now you're dealing with a faceless, collective enemy with a single name, effectively requiring you to only have to pass judgement once, and not many times.  Almost everyone is guilty of this at some point in their life; some more than others.

I prefer to get to know people on an individual basis, personally.  It takes great personal fortitude for someone raised in a society entrenched in bigotry and ego to be able to do this.  I slip every once and a while, but am quick to correct myself.

Avoid knee-jerk reactions to words and appearances.  Listen and understand human beings on a deeper level than that.  Are there virtuous republicans?  Of course.  Are they the norm?  No, not really, but then again, does it even matter?  What this world needs is less superficial understanding, less labeling and imaginary line-in-the-sand drawing.  What we need to do is strip away all the frivolities of political discourse and get right down to the heart of the issue.  We are all human, the vast majority of us are incapable of wanton cruelty, and all of us just want to be happy, without exception.

I don't know about you, but people make me happy more than anything else.  It's the same for everyone, they just don't know it, or know how to appreciate it.  It's not their fault either, we don't teach human values in today's society.  We teach our children to value slips of paper, official documents and shiny badges.

I'll say it again.  This entire argument is completely asinine.  So long as artificial borders and categories exist, progress will be impeded.

~ Blair

Blair, you said a lot of things I agree with in there, but I disagree that the vast majority of people are incapable of wanton cruelty.  If anything, Milgram's obedience experiments would seem to suggest just the opposite.

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 12:50:19 PM
Blair, you said a lot of things I agree with in there, but I disagree that the vast majority of people are incapable of wanton cruelty.  If anything, Milgram's obedience experiments would seem to suggest just the opposite.

You're wrong.  During the holocaust, gas chambers were implemented only because the firing squads lost their minds after killing so many rows of people every day.  Human beings cannot handle directly slaughtering their own kind.  It goes against our deeper instincts; species-wide surival, which is linked to compassion and justice.  You have to be literally insane to be able to go against these instincts, and there are very few of these sociopaths in the world, compared to the vast majority.

Americans, for example, can only rally behind a cause if they believe it is just.  Even if only a little.  Americans shout about freedom and democracy, because they want to be good people, but they don't really know how.  There is a Machiavellian minority that constantly deceives the good-intending majority into believing that whatever insidious plot they concoct is in the name of human progress.

In the end, they are just confused and twisted inside.  Most people will not stand for outright acts of aggression.  It takes a lot of detachment and delusion to make this possible.

The royal minority has lived in towers and spawned their successors, completely detached from reality, for thousands of years.  In order to begin true progress, we must bring everyone to the same level, and allow that human spirit to break free, redefining our objectives as a species and truly unlocking our potential.  It is only a matter of time before this occurs; instinct dicates it.

If the majority were wantonly cruel, the corrupt would need no means of deception to act.  In our world today, lies are a necessity in furthering the cause of greed and inhumanity.  Villains must wrap themselves in a false cloak of civility to succeed.  Brutes and dictators fall, ultimately, often at the jaws of a more cunning predator; the deceiver.

~ Blair

Quote from: Blair on March 16, 2007, 01:19:55 PM

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 12:50:19 PM
Blair, you said a lot of things I agree with in there, but I disagree that the vast majority of people are incapable of wanton cruelty.  If anything, Milgram's obedience experiments would seem to suggest just the opposite.

You're wrong.  During the holocaust, gas chambers were implemented only because the firing squads lost their minds after killing so many rows of people every day.

Do you have a source for this?  It seems quite possible that it was just that gas chambers didn't waste ammunition.  In Rwanda, the Hutus seemed to have no problem using mostly machetes to kill 800,000 Tutsis in three months.

Besides, Milgram's experiments at least show that all that is needed for cruelty is a layer of indirection and an authority figure.  Layers of indirection are easy to add, and the end result is the same.

The Nazi party switched from beatings, mass shootings, and other assorted flavours of extermination to using CO2 and cyanide gasses in order to efficiently kill as many people as possible.  The problem with the shootings is that it took too long, did not allow the full extermination to be in a timely manner, and some people managed to survive.  The goal of the Nazis was total annihilation of the Jewish population and any they saw unfit to live (homosexuals, "useless eaters", etc).

However, making people do the work will eventually get to them.  That is why there were so many assassination attempts carried out by Germans.  I happened to see an interview with one ex-Nazi soldier who said once they found out what was going on (they had been fighting far away from home) they took steps to stop the war.  This particular person was chosen to be fully loaded up with explosives and when Adolf came around to see the new uniforms, he would detonate himself.  Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the Americans bombed an ammunition plant and Hitler was diverted from inspecting the new uniforms to the site of the bombing.  It was a very interesting interview.

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 01:36:53 PM

Quote from: Blair on March 16, 2007, 01:19:55 PM

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 16, 2007, 12:50:19 PM
Blair, you said a lot of things I agree with in there, but I disagree that the vast majority of people are incapable of wanton cruelty.  If anything, Milgram's obedience experiments would seem to suggest just the opposite.

You're wrong.  During the holocaust, gas chambers were implemented only because the firing squads lost their minds after killing so many rows of people every day.

Do you have a source for this?  It seems quite possible that it was just that gas chambers didn't waste ammunition.  In Rwanda, the Hutus seemed to have no problem using mostly machetes to kill 800,000 Tutsis in three months.

Besides, Milgram's experiments at least show that all that is needed for cruelty is a layer of indirection and an authority figure.  Layers of indirection are easy to add, and the end result is the same.

Exactly.  That's not cruelty, though.  That's obedience to authority.  Wanton cruelty is killing and bringing pain to others for the mere sake of destruction.  Human beings cannot murder eachother without some manner of delusion.  You cannot have a species that is innately self-destructive; it doesn't make natural sense.  I see the goodness in so many hearts around me, but many of them have lost hope, and buy into the ridiculous notion that human beings are innately neutral or evil.  No, most human beings want to live and let live.  They want to do the right thing.

My proof?  My proof is reality.

As for my statement about the gas chambers, it was completely true.  The construction of large, impersonal death factories fragmented and detached the responsibility of the Germans involved.  "I didn't kill anyone, I just guarded the door."  "I didn't kill anyone, I just flipped the switch!"  We may be able to convince ourselves that ethnic cleansing or this sort of genocide might be for a 'greater good', but doing so renders us numb and empty, constantly questioning our own integrity.

I do not even see why you would argue about something like this.  It makes me ill.

I think I've derailed this thread far enough.  Human beings are innately good and compassionate, because we require delusions of morality to do terrible things.  That's all that needs to be understood.

~ Blair

Great!

Son of Satan is in office, and the Dems are cutting into each other already. So, the one time the Dems get to run against a non-incumbent, and they will screw it up ripping each other apart.

Just great!

If they were smart, they could have run Hillary and Obama together. Yeah, that sounds crazy, but it would have balanced the male against female, and the white against minority votes.

With the Dems in control of congress, electing a Dem pres. is the single best chance to get vital civil rights legislation passed in the next one to two presidential terms.

If the Dems cut each other up in the primaries, they will be easy pickings in the election.

Blair, I like the way you think.  I do believe that most people are good. Somehow we (as a society) get led by the nose into doing things that any single person would not do.

As for Hillary... I'm still taking a wait and see attitude.  I like Hillary. I really do. Whether she can pull it off or not is still up for grabs. whether I'll vote for her or not is still unknown.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on March 20, 2007, 07:44:51 PM
Blair, I like the way you think.  I do believe that most people are good. Somehow we (as a society) get led by the nose into doing things that any single person would not do.

Cindi

A person is smart.  People are stupid.

Here come the Men in Black!

Thank you for the acknowlegement, Cindi.  <3


~ Blair

Quote from: Blair on March 13, 2007, 02:11:22 AM
Every presidential election ever has been like Aliens vs. Predator.

Whoever wins, we lose.

~ Blair

I feel the U.S. election system is rigged to keep out any more than the two parties.  And I don't see how a choice between only two alternatives is any kind of a choice -- the possibilities are too limited, and choosing one of the two offered choices only reinforces the system.

I'd really like to see Instant Runoff Voting implemented for national elections.  One neat effect is it puts a disincentive on mudslinging attack campaigning (such as this 'fan-created' mashup,) lest your antics get you ranked last on too many people's ballots and, even if you would have been close in the present system, you end up getting nudged out by another candidate who was ranked second on many more ballots because he or she left a bad taste in far fewer mouths.

Another nice feature of IRV is that you can have multiple candidates without anyone being a 'spoiler' and 'stealing' votes away from a higher-ranked candidate.  No one's vote for a spoiler is 'thrown away'.

Anyway, that's what I strongly feel.  And you may have an opinion which strongly disagrees with that >

Karen

Karen, that is a very interesting idea.  Hmmm... I'll have to roll that one around for a little while.

Ultimately, we still have the vote. So it is still possible to elect people we want. The trick is to get in at the base level to get people posted to lower level positions. That's where the candidates come from.

I'm glad that California has finally decided to have their primaries earlier.  In earlier years, our primaries had absolutely no bearing on the elections. Now, perhaps, that will change.

Cindi

Hi,

   I know this thread is winding down. I just want to say that I liked reading everyone's point of view.

   I vote for 3rd, 4th, or 5th party people when I have a chance to. I usually do it because they are trying to present solid ideas in most cases.

   I know I'll be busted for this, but, Brianna, did you mean to say that [republicans are a party] in the entrails of Lucifer?

   Now I run away.
   

Obama > Clinton. Because Obama actually seems to be able to talk to people at a personal level that Hillary seems to miss.

[Ron] Paul > Giuliani. Because Paul is a strict constitutionalist, which means less government interference in personal and public life. And an end to unconstitutional war acts.

-- Bridget

Quote from: RebeccaFog on March 27, 2007, 01:46:18 PM
Brianna, did you mean to say that [republicans are a party] in the entrails of Lucifer?

No. I mean that the Republican party and the people that vote for them are, in my own opinion, serving at the behest of actual, swear to gods malevolent evil. As in, more people get genocided because of this vile and courupt party.

Bri

Brianna, remember, The Democratic Party has had more Presidents preside over the initiation of more wars than Republicans in US History. So I don't consider Brand Y to be better than Brand X. They're both crooks with a handful of exceptions in each party.

-- Bridget

That's fine. We respect all views here at Susans. I read a lot about people like you, and why you come to the conclusion both parties are equally bad while getting my polisci degree - so I won't try to argue.

I will say no Democrat ever started a war crime based off a pack of lies.

Bri

FDR lied about not knowing the attack on Pearl Harbor. The same when he was Secretary of the Navy during WW1 and claimed the he didn't know about the Luestania[sp?] having weapons aboard. Then we can compare that to Lincoln [first Republican President], who lied that he wasn't going to start a war with the southern states on his campaign, when he had one of his men approach then Colonel Robert Lee for a position in the army he was amassing.

My point on these comparisons? Both parties tripe, and it's best to abandon them for a better alternative. :3

-- Bridget