Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
midwife my use of 'wrong' is of course predicated upon some version of Aldo Leopold's definition of what is ethical. I would say, instead, There are Few Decent Governments In The World and just leave it at that. For you, voting is like going to church is for so many people. Very well. Hell I went to church the other day. Only because we were lined up to do the music, long boring story.
spottedwind I believe i hinted at options. I would enjoy that conversation but I do think I have derailed this thread enough. Mebbe I'll start that thread later.
Surely context can tell you which groups I mean. After all, you described them. Anyway, determining 'intent' behind falshood is a subjective matter. but...
| Quote | | Whether what they think actually is the best is another conversation. |
i think that is the important conversation.
regarding doing both, i meant that from my perspectives there are no suggestions, within this model, worth offering. That is far different from saying that there are no suggested alternatives at all.
| Quote | | I was trying to understand HOW to change a system that we wanted changed if we preclude physical violence and participating in the system. |
the 64000 dollar question. I suggest that it can't happen without physical violence, but I am not advocating physical violence. Just that, as you note, those with power will not relinquish that power easily.
you correctly understood the meaning of what i intended by 'group identity'. i do suggest that you look up the original quote tarden lifted for his sig line. i am not advocating living 'without society', just the global (or even continental) version that has been the result of the way things are now.
i'm not suggesting you are a creationist, just pointing out that the objection you make that 'not voting is tacit approval of the status quo'. that is about the same thing as when the fundies say 'the atheist knows deep down there is a god' and other such muddlesome foolishness. false dichotomy and all that.
| Quote | | the point is that not every politician wants to keep things the same. |
they want to keep things the same in that none are advocating the abolition of the system by virtue of their election. that is the 'same' that is the problem.
regarding B, I think this is the ecological imperative that is the bottom line for the future of human societies on earth. it's the only option if we wish to maintain the sorts of social and ecological connections that have defined humanity for the majority of their existence on this planet. will folks who love zipping around on jet planes and eating advocadoes while living in alaska resist? of course. i return to leopold's definition of what is good and right to settle this issue. of course whether that definition is robust is another matter.
i am involved in resistance activities that participate within the system as it exists now. science is the only tool i have at my disposal for that sort of resistance, and it is a particularly ineffective tool within the american system. i'm just bringing this up to demonstrate that i'm not advocating hermits turning off tuning out and dropping out, or dreadlocked hippies beating drums at a protest.
growing your own food is a start. disavowing personal responsibility for your fellow man, in principle and not in practice, is another. In other words, warm fuzzy platitudes about all men created equal, love it or leave it, vote or shut up, etc etc are invalid. I'm not sure if this is clear enough, but I'm not advocating selfishness or screw everyone but me. I don't live like that. I'm saying I distrust solutions that work at the scale above the individual.
here is a fine example of my frustration. both of these douchebag teams running for president are advocating clean coal technologies in the face of mountains of evidence (or the destruction of over 700 mountains as evidence) that coal energy is poisonous to the environment, poisonous to water, destroys ancient forests, hunting grounds and poisonous to social relations within human communities. yet both parties are parroting the talking points given them by the coal industry who is heavily invested in both parties. where do you go with that? there aren't options.
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
