The Barack Obama review/critique thread

[False Joe]

itt: Zeph speaks his mind and people get shocked that someone who is benefiting from the current regime is happy to keep it that way.

 

[Zephyrus]

I don't know you as one to troll, so my respect for you has kinda tanked.

Oh boo-hoo. If I wanted to have a more coherent (that is, sober) political argument rather than a place to vent my unchecked stream-of-thought rationalizations, I wouldn't waste it all on an internet Metal forum. This is especially so more recently because I've managed to act much less this way in real life (as you've observed).

If you want to critique my gut sentiments, I encourage it and will benefit.

 

[False Joe]

Lulz. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8110730.stm

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Oh boo-hoo. If I wanted to have a more coherent (that is, sober) political argument rather than a place to vent my unchecked stream-of-thought rationalizations, I wouldn't waste it all on an internet Metal forum. This is especially so more recently because I've managed to act much less this way in real life (as you've observed).

If you want to critique my gut sentiments, I encourage it and will benefit.

I can't really tell what your actual beliefs are at this point, or how strongly you believe them whatever they are, since with this post you seem to be downplaying, yet not quite entirely dismissing, what you posted earlier.

But anyway, the two things under discussion here, which I would expect any rational and moral person to support, are (1) a society which in some way prevents people from becoming impoverished/destitute through misfortune while those most fortunate live extremely well-off, and (2) a government which serves the interests of its citizens and does not lead them recklessly into the sorts of economic and environmental disasters that we're currently headed for.

I'm pretty sure one cannot argue beyond a doubt that neither of those goals is achievable, so that leaves a burden of responsibility on all of us to do our part to ensure that they are achieved - or at least go out of our way to try, since so much of what we value as human beings depends upon them. It's bad enough to be too cowardly or lazy to pursue them, although such shortcomings in character are common and understandable (the greatest failure of our educational system, probably). It's far worse to be so callous that you don't even care whether the goals are achieved. You seem to fall into the latter group based on your previous comments, so unless you have some way to defend your lack of care as rational or moral, I will have to assume that you are neither.

 

[Zephyrus]

I conduct myself morally and environmentally responsibly as far as it's convenient or minimally less than so. I'm merely explaining why I have such an attitude and that I don't deny it. Moral obligations are only effected to the degree they are convenient, otherwise the willpower does not exist amongst the majority of those comfortably feed upon a system whether it's "broken" or not.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Not sure what you mean by "only effected to the degree they are convenient". Do you mean there exist no moral obligations which require inconvenience to satisfy? Also, what is the standard for convenience? A lumber company might consider it inconvenient to replant trees after cutting them down, but not doing so would result in desertification of forest land.

 

[Zephyrus]

That's not on an individual scale.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It can easily be extended to an individual scale. Say there's another lumber company that does replant trees where they cut them down. Their prices are thus higher than the cutting-only company. It's inconvenient to consumers to pay extra for the lumber that's harvested sustainably.

There are any number of examples that fall along these lines, if you use a little imagination. At any rate, you didn't answer either of the questions in my previous post.

 

[Zephyrus]

Because I gave up and stopped caring. It became inconvenient to conquer my apathy and justify it any longer.

Obviously I underrate the power of human will over human nature. As someone with a huge historical perspective of human events, I tend to disregard all the small, nice things we are capable of, and focus on the long-term failures of humanity over thousands of years. I was exploring the root cause of such failure, attributing it to human nature's lack of altruism (which actually does exist according to Dawkins) and selfishness.

It becomes a rather personal inquiry. This is how I like to have arguments. I go with my gut opinions and see how they are wrong or right. Unlike many I'm not arguing convictions as much as notions.

 

[Dak]

I would extend the arguement that the major failures humanity has seen has been the result mainly of the actions of a very few very twisted individuals that were allowed success due to the apathy of the majority, as opposed to everyone attempting to do the wrong thing.

 

[cookiecutter]

I wouldn't say that most of history's twisted individuals were brought into power due to apathy. For most of history the majority of people had no say in who was in power. And it's not like they rolled over and took it either. Peasant revolts were incredibly common, not to mention stuff like the revolutions of 1848. Even in the time of democracy, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. were not brought in by apathy, but the opposite. There was genuine ideological fervor behind them.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Because I gave up and stopped caring. It became inconvenient to conquer my apathy and justify it any longer.

Obviously I underrate the power of human will over human nature. As someone with a huge historical perspective of human events, I tend to disregard all the small, nice things we are capable of, and focus on the long-term failures of humanity over thousands of years. I was exploring the root cause of such failure, attributing it to human nature's lack of altruism (which actually does exist according to Dawkins) and selfishness.

It becomes a rather personal inquiry. This is how I like to have arguments. I go with my gut opinions and see how they are wrong or right. Unlike many I'm not arguing convictions as much as notions.

Well I've acknowledged that humanity isn't likely to get itself in shape for the crises we currently face, but past failures are never an excuse for future ones, and even a tiny chance of turning ourselves around is worth taking given how serious the consequences of not doing so could be. You are of course free to abandon any responsibility for making a positive contribution toward social and political change, but it's a pretty disgraceful thing to close yourself up in that kind of a bubble and act as if you aren't a part of the big picture.

 

[Zephyrus]

I would extend the arguement that the major failures humanity has seen has been the result mainly of the actions of a very few very twisted individuals that were allowed success due to the apathy of the majority, as opposed to everyone attempting to do the wrong thing.

"Twisted" is a very subjective word. Think how many different opinions there were of Julius Caesar before and after his assassination. And there's still debate over whether his revolution was worthwhile or the old Republic should have continued.

(I'd say for the better because once people realized they can get power by having a private military, honest politics couldn't work without an autocrat)

I wouldn't say that most of history's twisted individuals were brought into power due to apathy. For most of history the majority of people had no say in who was in power. And it's not like they rolled over and took it either. Peasant revolts were incredibly common, not to mention stuff like the revolutions of 1848. Even in the time of democracy, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. were not brought in by apathy, but the opposite. There was genuine ideological fervor behind them.

In realist's terms, they were sick as always of the way things were, so they changed to something that eventually might become just as bad but was even harder to get rid of, e.g. 20th-century Russia.

Well I've acknowledged that humanity isn't likely to get itself in shape for the crises we currently face, but past failures are never an excuse for future ones, and even a tiny chance of turning ourselves around is worth taking given how serious the consequences of not doing so could be. You are of course free to abandon any responsibility for making a positive contribution toward social and political change, but it's a pretty disgraceful thing to close yourself up in that kind of a bubble and act as if you aren't a part of the big picture.

Of course I do what I can. I just acknowledge my ability not to.

I'll end on this point made by Plato in the Republic. Those who become philosophers become disgusted by politics and have no desire to "return to the cave" and deal with the blind cave dwellers and their delusions. There's also the Image of the Ship. The philosopher may have the best knowledge of piloting, but he has no desire to clash with those who are better skilled at fighting over the helm.

 

[Dak]

The philosopher may have the best knowledge of piloting, but he has no desire to clash with those who are better skilled at fighting over the helm.

After several years of beating my head against the wall with people in the Marine Corps, I totally understand and agree with this analogy.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Pretty good point.

 

[Death Aflame]

I wouldn't say that most of history's twisted individuals were brought into power due to apathy. For most of history the majority of people had no say in who was in power. And it's not like they rolled over and took it either. Peasant revolts were incredibly common, not to mention stuff like the revolutions of 1848. Even in the time of democracy, Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc. were not brought in by apathy, but the opposite. There was genuine ideological fervor behind them.

+1

 

[Dak]

Barack Obama makes a telling speech.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

That's old.
the Constitution is something most of our politicians dont give a fuck about. Repubs and Dems

 

[The Ozzman]

What did he say in a nutshell?

 

[Dak]

That the Bush administration just did whatever it wanted without regard to the "rule of law", and they were wrong. So Obama is going to make up new laws to justify what he is doing.