xssve
Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather
that's very interesting xssve, but has no bearing on the question whatso-fucking-ever.
<and yes icky, there is a certain "strength" to one's convictions when you're packing  >
Well it does in Two ways: the upshot of all that is yes, it is yoru right in theory to do as you like, as long as your actions are ethical - and ethics as distinct from morality, is a cost benefit ratio, i.e., the the more symmetrical the costs and benefits of a given act are distributed, the more ethical it is, and more asymmetrical, the less ethical, etc., as opposed to morality , which is largely a personal choice - anyway, the key to maintaining a consensus system is free speech, you do have the right to express your opinion and that is relaly sacrosanct above all, since in order for a consensus to form, some sort of communication of ideas must occur thus at the point you lose free sppech, you alos lose government by consensus, including the consensus that nosy bastards should stay the fuck out of you business - we happen to live in an imperfect world where paid speech often takes precedence over the free sort - the NWO riots for example were in the end, appropriate, they got the attention of people who were otherwise intent on riding roughshod over the rights of others - the big sovereignty/takings debacle, and that shit needed to be stopped, in that case, the riots, I think, accomplished what they were supposed to accomplish, so I wouldn't feel too bad about that one, the outcome was a desirable one.
I cannot comment on the current UK riots, I really don't have a clear idea what the issues are, but while rioting is generally deplorable and to be avoided, innocent people get hurt in mob violence, it's no different than war in that respect, there are times when it takes something like that to get somebody's attention - there is no consensus, and no justification in the constitution, for rule by fiat, but that hasn't ever stopped anybody from trying, paid speech tends to take priority over the free variety, and the US has quite a long history of rioting, it's really nothing new here, in spite of the official line - we are, after all, a former English colony, and we inherited a few of the patterns - Britain eventually got the Puritans under control for example, but not before a lot of them emigrated here during the great migration, and many of they're actual and philosophical descendents would like nothing better apparently, than to overthrow this constitutional democracy and replace it with a fiat theocracy, its like their destiny, or so they imagine. We're still fighting the English Civil Wars over here, in some respects.
Anyway, realistically, in such a situation, the key is to get the real story out, the riot is noise, it's meaningless and stupid, that's the nature of the mob, and it's usually in response to some equally offensive, stupid and meaningless actions of some other mob, although they may have rioted slower and more quietly, so if anything is to be accomplished, it will be through some consensus - if the consensus is "burn the fuckers", or "ship 'em off to Australia", i.e., the usual official line, nothing will change, you have to get both sides out to modify the consensus.
If the entrenched interests that want things to stay this way are allowed to control the narrative unopposed, it will stay that way, and there will be another riot, eventually.
The question to ask yourself here is: could you have prevented it?
I'm assuming no, so the next best thing here is to do whatever you can to make sure the sacrifices made, including those made by innocent bystanders, were not in vain, that the underlying problem is addressed.
< Message edited by xssve -- 8/11/2011 5:56:16 AM >
|
RE: a philosophical question. - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread