Political Mumbo Jumbo

[Her0Lover]

lol ......whats your fave color and food ? (i dont want to sound like a stalker or something but im trying to make conversation...)

 

[Tyrael]

Blue, Potatoes :3

 

[Grey]

Black, silver, and green.


Anything that can't outrun me and will fit in my mouth.

 

[The Gunrunner]

1: What do you believ or think abot sme-sex marriage?

I'm sorry, but I have to ask: Is english a second language for you? I'm asking because there's quite a few spelling mistakes. If not, then I'd suggest some kind of spell checker. Not trying to be a douche, but I honestly didn't know what you were asking until someone responded about homosexuality.


Anyway, I think it's fine. It's not something someone can help (since they're born that way,) and even if they chose to do it I would have no reason to care; if you want to do something uncommon that has no victims, then I have no qualms. Hell, you can smear honey on yourself and roll around in hay. I won't, and shouldn't, care.


I'm going to respond to your disagreement:

ok i can see wher you are coming from. i really do . but i am going to have to di agree and i will tell you why.
personally i dont see how pople could agree with it. and im not being mean. its just it goes against what i belive to be true and im not saying that i dont like the people i just simply dont like there life style choice...i hope i didnt come across mean but in the Bible homosexuality is considered a sin so i like to say "hate the sin,not the sinner"

"Personally I don't see how people could agree with it. I'm not being mean, it's just that it goes against what I believe to be true." Hard for me to relate, but I do have issues with putting myself into someone else's mindset sooo... 50% relating to this. Anyway, you just have to take their word for it. We're not lying to you, and we (hopefully) have reasons to bring forward when questioned.


"It just goes against what I believe to be true, and I'm not saying that I don't like the people but I simply don't like their lifestyle choice." Thaaat's not a refutation. Maybe you weren't going for one, but this hasn't brought down any beliefs.


Also: If I may be blunt, this really does read as "I won't believe that this is okay" to me.


"...but in the bible homosexuality is considered a sin..." But I'm not a christian, so I don't really care what the bible says. I mean, the only people that need to follow its laws are other christians. In the event it's proven to be true, then other people should start following it... but that's the only scenario.


You weren't mean, and I'm not trying to be either.


Edit: Colour: Black... Shush, I'm picking it.


Food: Don't have one, but my favorite category of such would be japanese food.

 

[Commander]

the first question can be dangerous to descuse so be polte and no accusing people of hate-speech;
1: What do you believ or think abot sme-sex marriage?

Why there is such a question? You just as well have asked what do I think about cancer - or something like that.

 

[Vetenskapsman]

Oh lord. Grey would be droppin some stuff on us about existentialism and whatnot. I'd be very ill equipped to answer those sorts of things.

Well, I must say, existential philosophy would be a fun one.

 

[Grey]

Well, since this is seemingly dead, how about this one?


Hobbes or Rousseau?

 

[Vetenskapsman]

Hmm. Well I believe Hobbes to have an almost correct in his interpretation of human nature. Where my opinion diverges is that humans are intrinsically egoistic, and it is that egoism which most often is the motive for "malignant" actions, rather than people being base and vile in and of themselves. Furthermore, my views on monarchy are, as most people of the modern era, markedly different from the conclusions Hobbes came to.


Rousseau's more enlightenment, humanistic ideas, however, led to better conclusions about how to properly govern a society (i.e. social contract, popular sovereignty), regardless of my disagreement in the fundamental nature of people.

 

[Grey]

Fair points. I have always held that a syncretism is most viable - and like many excellent philosophers, gaps tend to appear when you apply modern scientific principles.


I must agree that egoism is more likely a basis for a propensity towards malign behaviour, and I view benevolent dictatorship (monarchical or no) as an unattainable ideal. I appreciate that we have spared not a thought for Hobbes' religious arguments - I always thought those might be a necessary protective precaution, on his part. I used to loathe Descartes until someone pointed out he was covering his ass.


Rousseau's charmingly naive assumptions of human nature are certainly overshadowed by the superior governmental principles he put forward, though I believe we can probably extrapolate towards still better ends these days. Hrm. I think I should re-read the Second Discourse; it's been about five years.


Much as I am sick of Plato, I think a lot of his political philosophy was not without merit.

 

[Vetenskapsman]

Yes, any notion of benevolent autocracy kind of falls apart when paired with any kind of secular philosophy. Without divine right, putting another inherently flawed human being above all the other inherently flawed beings and thinking things will work themselves out is flat-out absurd.


I can't say that I'm too terribly educated with regards to Plato, so I suppose I can't really make any profound statements about his philosophy, political or otherwise. And in any case, even if his ideas are dated by today's standards, it is important to take into account social attitudes and the surrounding events of the lives of philosophers.


Politics, also, tend not, for most people, to fit so easily into one philosophical mold. For instance, two prominent thinkers who very similarly espouse science and reason as the ultimate epistomological framework, Auguste Comte and Ayn Rand (who I'm reluctant to label a philosopher, but did give birth to "objectivism") came to very different conclusions on how people should be treated and society governed. Personally, I think much of the debate in politics comes down to the fundamental principles of altruism versus egoism which can only truly be debated with a great deal of abstraction, or meritocracy versus egalitarianism.

 

[DerUbermensch]

To tell the truth, I agree more with Hobbes than Rousseau. A good example of Hobbes' theory of life being nasty, violent, brutish and short (if I remember well) would be none other than Somalia. Plenty of anarchy and violence.

 

[Tyrael]

Well this just entered a level I couldn't even begin to comment on.

 

[DerUbermensch]

Well this just entered a level I couldn't even begin to comment on.

Sorry about that. I hope I'm not too controversial or philosophical.

 

[Vetenskapsman]

There wouldn't be such a thing as philosophy if no controversy was involved, now would there? That's part of the fun.

 

[Protagonist]

I'm with Hobbes...to an extent.


My opinion on human nature is that we're, by nature, chaotic neutral. By default, people are amoral (but not usually sociopathic), cowardly, selfish hedonists. However-these people are not evil, because their conscience makes them unhappy when they're too evil. Basically: nobody wants to be evil, nobody wants to be good.


However, nurture can eliminate this. The environment someone grows up in can reprogram them in such a fashion that they become evil or good.