Religion of peace?

[Ashock]

http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-mob-burns...05412.html

Nothing like a good burning to make god happy, I guess.

Peace.

[Tris]

Isn't fire purifying?

[Occhidiangela]

Ashock, in recent weeks some Go folks in Pakistan who are vaccinating people against polio are being killed (9 at last count) due to the fear that they are injecting poison that will make Pakistani men go limp.

I am not sure that's a religion problem, but it's a problem about stupidity run amok.

[LavCat]

Mobs sometimes do bad things.

A long time ago, but to put it in historical perspective, about four years before my father's birth, a mob just a few miles from here broke into a jail and lynched a prisoner. Years later someone else made a deathbed confession of the crime of which the lynched man was accused.

This does not make right what the folks in Pakistan have done, but they are not the only ones.

[Tris]

Self-imposed ignorance is perhaps the greatest danger in the world.

One of the best ways to retain power over people is to keep the people ignorant of what is going on around them.

It is interesting to note the differences between various cultures, geographic locations, religions, and other factors.

Among some American Indian tribes, you'd find the "shaman," etc. taking peyote or other hallucinogens, and then providing guidance to their tribes. In the Judeo-Christian realm, you have religious leaders who would go into the desert and fast for X days, and come back with "visions" to lead their people. Different physiological mechanism, but similar results; and similar issues.

For centuries Catholicism practiced a similar suppression of knowledge. Who knows how far Europe might have advanced without those issues. Perhaps Spain gives an excellent example when F&I kicked the Moors out of Spain.

I find it interesting that when people comment about Islam, they tend to forget that Islam is not going anywhere that has not been gone before. The tactics might be different. The weaponry is definitely different, thanks to modern devices. However, Islam is not that far removed from what Christianity was back in the Middle Ages... which is about at the same age of the religion, given that Islam dates from roughly 620 AD, IIRC.

[Tris]

My thoughts are: Stop trying to "fix" their problems. When they get tired of people contracting polio and dying of suffocation, etc., then maybe they will stop believing whatever the local cleric, whoever is spewing.

We do not owe it to the world to try to fix all of the world's problems. If someplace wants our help, and is eager to work with it, fine. But, if they don't want us there, who are we to say they have to take our help?

The locals want to kill aid workers? Fine. They can figure out how to be self-sufficient, and if it doesn't work, maybe they would be more receptive.

One of the models of human behavior change says that when a person experiences enough pain, they change their behavior. Perhaps, instead of trying to alleve some of the populace's pain that they are experiencing due to the regime ... maybe we should allow them to experience it full force. Let them see that it isn't working.

[Occhidiangela]

However, Islam is not that far removed from what Christianity was back in the Middle Ages... which is about at the same age of the religion, given that Islam dates from roughly 620 AD, IIRC.

It's comforting to see that there is only seven hundred years of catching up to do.

One of the models of human behavior change says that when a person experiences enough pain, they change their behavior. Perhaps, instead of trying to alleve some of the populace's pain that they are experiencing due to the regime ... maybe we should allow them to experience it full force. Let them see that it isn't working.

If you wish to apply a human behavior model to a society, you can try, but not all things scale up very evenly.

Here's an example: the maritime embargo against General Cedras in Haiti after Aristide got tossed out.
The pain applied didn't hurt the gentry much, but it did lay some lumber on the every day Joe in Haiti.
Likewise the embargo versus Iran: the rich are still buying Mercedes and other luxury goods.

What outcome do you want the pain to enable? Answering that question is very important when choosing to apply pain to change behavior.

Merry Christmas.

Occhi

[eppie]

[quote='Occhidiangela' pid='204838' dateline='1356457138']
[quote]However, Islam is not that far removed from what Christianity was back in the Middle Ages... which is about at the same age of the religion, given that Islam dates from roughly 620 AD, IIRC.[/quote]

It's comforting to see that there is only seven hundred years of catching up to do.
[quote]

Hardly, give an average christian political party in the west one finger and they will take the whole hand. In secular Holland a small Christian party became an important partner in a coalition a few years ago and directly they started bargaining (and partly succeeding) for changing many of our liberal laws. The only difference is that most of the 'major' Christian countries are first world western, and so the average joe has too much to loose (socioeconomically) to go on flag burning tours.

The reason these Muslim countries are now making so much trouble instead of trying to create a better society is that they are influenced by lobbies from the gulf states, and that we, because we like oil so much, don't want to leave those same gulf states alone.


edit: And damn I fell for it......told myself not to react on the troll threads and there I go again.....I am a weak person

[FireIceTalon]

and so the average joe has too much to loose (socioeconomically) to go on flag burning tours.

Or so they're told. Personally, flag burning tours are my favorite kind of tours

[Tris]

The US has enough oil/gas under it to make itself self-sufficient for decades. Heck, ND apparently has more oil under it than much of the Middle East. Throw in AK and TX, possibly Northeast Ohio, parts of PA, etc., and we could tell the Middle East to go shove sand up its collective arse.

Our biggest problem is that we *export* petroleum products. Funny, drill here, drill now, stop being dependent on foreign oil ... we've all heard that slogan. Truth of the matter is that we export the stuff.

Perhaps if we worried less about whether oil company execs brought home fat pay checks, and more about whether we truly were energy independent... this wouldn't be an issue.

[FireIceTalon]

But in a capitalist society, profits come before everything else - be it the environment or human need. So it will always be an issue, regardless. Us being less concerned about energy dependency isn't the cause of the problem, it is an effect, and one that makes no difference either way in the big picture, because the State's objective first duty in this case is to be sure oil execs bring home fat pay checks.

[Tris]

But in a capitalist society, profits come before everything else - be it the environment or human need. So it will always be an issue, regardless. Us being less concerned about energy dependency isn't the cause of the problem, it is an effect, and one that makes no difference either way in the big picture, because the State's objective first duty in this case is to be sure oil execs bring home fat pay checks.

Normally I agree with free-market economics. However, there are certain times when security interests take priority over the concept of free-market economics.

Pretty sure that oil company execs would bring home fat pay checks if we turned off the tap to China, etc. and sold the oil domestically.

Also, part of the problem is that people no longer think long-term. Yes, short-term it might be cheaper (read that more profitable) to not have work place safety requirements, building requirements, etc. However, when the thing falls apart, it can cost way more than the savings.

One company up here comes to mind. They never got inspections on the $16M building, never applied for a building permit, never paid any of those costs. Probably saved ~$150,000 or so immediately by not doing any of that. They went ahead and built the building without any inspections whatsoever.

However, the building was built by a contractor who built a similar structure in Equitorial Guinea, and built the building to those specifications. The water piping, etc. all ran right along a minimally insulated, guess uninsulated is a better term, sheet metal roof.

The structure was built in Northwest North Dakota. Those of you who live in colder climates can probably see the issue immediately As could have been predicted even by myself, the water pipes froze and exploded. The company had a $16M swimming pool, had repair costs, had move-in delays, and had increased fees and penalties for not getting the proper inspections.

We no longer have capitalism, which seeks to reward those who risk capital in starting new businesses and expanding older ones. What we have is more akin to short-term greed, which is a terribly destructive force.

The CEO's, CFO's, Presidents, Chairmen, Directors, board members, etc., of most modern large businesses did not place their own capital at risk to found the operation. They truly are playing with other people's money, not their own. Just look at all the execs who got nice fat pay checks and nice fat bonuses while their companies wound up getting bailed out to keep large portions of their sectors from utterly collapsing. True capitalism says that those folks would be out in the streets trying to figure out how to pay for their mansions, luxury cars, yachts, etc.

Pretty sure that execs of the caliber of say Andrew Carnegie's Mr. Schwab are still fairly few and far between.

[FireIceTalon]

We still have capitalism. The greed we see now is just the inevitable byproduct and a symptom of the capitalist mode of production, it has always been there. Indeed it is a terribly destructive force, but you cannot have capitalism without greed - it is scientifically impossible - whether it is State Capitalism seen in the former Soviet Union, or the private enterprise version in western states. There is no such thing as "true" capitalism - capitalism is capitalism. Sure, the amount of state involvement varies from nation to nation, and from time to time, but the end result and purpose is always the same - capitalists control the means of production and thus society is divided into haves and have-nots - those who rule society and those who are ruled, and the social and political institutions are developed and operate accordingly. It is the exploitation of the majority by the minority. The only difference is if you wish to live with no dignity under absolute state power, or a combination of state power and corporate welfare. Me personally, I hate both.

Asking for capitalists (or the state for that matter) to be more ethical and responsible and not play with other peoples money is idealistic. If only those darn capitalists were more responsible and ethical...yea, right. The bailout of various corporations and Wall Street back in 2008 surprised a lot of people, including myself at the time, but that was also when I was a bleeding heart, patriotic liberal/social democrat (shudders): before I woke up and learned how capitalism and its relationship to the State really works, and became a full blown Marxist. Looking back on it, it is no mystery to me at all now. Lastly, terms like "free-market economics" are just buzzwords that have little or no meaning. Free for who? There is no such thing as a "free market" for the majority of society - you cannot choose what university you get to go to. You do not choose any kind of car you want. You do not choose which type of health insurance plan you want. You do not choose what type of house you get to live in. Or how often you eat out and where you eat at. You get what you can AFFORD (unless of course, you are a capitalist and have control of the means to production, and then it doesn't matter).

[Tris]

Where I live, I see several different types of companies. Some are US based, others are Canadian, and we have some European folks out here including Statoil of Norway. I assure you that every significant company out here, that isn't poorly run by a bunch of drunken/druggy idiots, does quite well.

You'll probably recognize some of the names: Haliburton; Baker Hughes; Schlumberger; Prairie (Sask. company); Sanjel; Target Logistics; Tervita (Canadian I think); Amarada-Hess; Conocco-Phillips; Chevron-Texaco (to a lesser extent, Texaco was early drilling out here); Atco; Flying J; Weatherford; Exxon-Mobil; NABORS; etc..

The approaches to community involving vary with each company. Target Logistics does quite a bit of free catering work for various community functions. Schlumberger helped finance new equipment for law enforcement. It just depends on which company, and who runs it.

I must disagree to a certain extent Marxism. I am by no means wealthy, but I do more than the average US per capita income. That is because I took it upon myself to gain specialized knowledge, and despite several missteps on my part, have attained a fairly decent position. Maybe I could have done better but for my missteps, who knows.

For many of those events, the fault lies entirely with me. I will not, however, accept the blame for those at interview sessions who would not even shake my hand because they were afraid of my psoriasis. Given the reaction, I probably didn't want to work there anyway.

My point being is this: that there is no real incentive to improve in a Marxist society, at least none that I can see.

As far as houses and cars go, not 100% sure I agree with your statements. At my current income, I could afford pretty much any vehicle I'd be interested in.

Can I afford a Ferrari? No. Am I interested in a Ferarri? No. Do I want a Ferarri? No. Even if I were to have the net worth of Bill Gates would I own a Ferrari? No. The same goes for virtually all "exotic" cars, having seen people of my general body plan try to get into and out of them

Could I afford an MB G-Class, S-Class, Maybach, or similar automobile? No. Do I want any of those? No. Why not? Well, seeing as how it's just me, myself, and I, why bother with something like that? The only one of those vehicles that holds some interest is the G-Class simply because of where I live. But, it doesn't do anything better than what a Jeep Wrangler, a Toyota FJ-Cruiser even a Land Cruiser, an assortment of Audi's, or a host of other rugged true-4 wheel drive vehicles is capable of. Heck, I could buy a Subaru Tribeca or H-6 Outback, and get much of the functionality, get better fuel economy, and invest the remaining money.

When I first moved out here, I needed a new vehicle as the old one was having issues. I didn't do what some of my classmates had done, and rush out to buy some high-end model. Instead, I chose a base model 4 cylinder Toyota Camry (only one on the lot) with only three pieces of optional equipment: remote entry (wouldn't have gotten but for frozen locks potential), automatic transmission, and an engine block heater installed up here. Got really low interest financing, and invested the money saved over buying a higher-end model. Only regret is not getting the V-6, but eh it still gets me where I want to go, even places that SUV get stuck in winter

As far as houses go, just how much house am I supposed to need/want? The house I grew up in is ~3,000 sq. feet. And, let me tell you, there's no way I'd want something that big. In most other equivalent sized markets to what I live in, I could purchase a house of that size if I wanted to. Could probably purchase a house here too. However, given the price of housing out here, I simply refuse to pay that kind of money.

Don't lump all "state" folks in together. I work for municipal government out here in North Dakota. Having lived in other states, I have to say ND does a pretty good job with its government. We are massively understaffed and having difficulty finding people to come out here, so some things get triaged. For some reason, people seem to think of ND as vast nothingness.

Never understood what the attraction to eating out is. I have had a high-end, at least for out here, steak dinner. I have had a steak dinner that I've made myself either by broiling (winter) or grilling. Apart from variations in seasoning (steakhouse used a vinegar based marinade), I really can't tell the difference. I can order, purchase, or grow the same herbs they use. I can order or purchase balsamic vinegar if I want to. I can purchase T-bone, ribeye, NY strip, or any other cut either from a grocer or "fresh off the steer" so-to-speak from a local packer. I can purchase, or grow, most any variety of potato. Etc., etc.. So, the question is: why spend $50 for a steak dinner, when you can make one for far less at home *and* enjoy the smells while it cooks?

Just about the only time I eat out anymore is for business/social gatherings. Why spend the extra money when you can do it yourself?

I see the problem as being less with capitalism than with folks trying to get as much as possible in the next 30 seconds, or less, without any thought to the long-term implications. Things like the execs who lay people off by the tens-of-thousands, and suddenly find themselves even less competitive than they were before.

There is no socio-economic-political system that is ideal. All have their benefits and problems. Regardless of the problems with them, one has to admit that when a decision is made by a military dictator, stuff happens. And things like the republican form of government and "democracy" suffer from the tyranny of the majority.

[FireIceTalon]

There is no such thing as a "Marxist" society (nor can there be) - for Marxism isn't material condition of society or an ideology - it is an objective mode of analysis used for understanding human social organization and development. One can be a Marxist and still be a capitalist (not very common, but certainly possible). But if you mean a socialist organization of society as far as improvement goes, this is a pretty general statement. How does one measure improvement? By a nations wealth and GDP? Technology? It is completely subjective. Most people tend to think of improving society in a technological context. By that standard, that would mean the Soviet Union under Stalin was highly successful and there was much incentive to improve society. The truth is, while it did improve rapidly and became a international powerhouse, it did so at great cost to human life and dignity. The same was true of the United States, and still is. Capitalism is a system that supposedly promotes constant growth, but constant growth in a world of limited resources is not only illogical, it's also impossible. Besides, we are looooooong past the point in most areas where we need to continue to grow for society to reach its potential, and even in the areas where we arenit, I see no evidence that we need a market economy and bosses to accomplish it.

As for incentive, we don't need capitalists or capitalism to have incentive to labor. Capitalism has existed for less than 3/10ths of a percent of modern humans time on the planet, and there was incentive in all other social organizations of society prior. Labor is required for survival regardless of whether it is a hunter/gatherer society, a socialist society, feudal, or a capitalist one. However, each of these systems have very fundamentally different social relations with the productive forces in each, though the first two, for all their differences, have one important and distinct thing in common: They lack exploitation, because both are a society of free producers with little to no hierarchy. In both, people produce and process what they need to survive, instead of being forced to produce a surplus values of commodities for a boss, who then turns said surplus value into a profit for itself, even though the value was not produced by his or her labor. There is little incentive to improve in a capitalist society if anything, and that is why it requires a very strong and centralized powerful state to uphold the system. Inequality doesn't arbitrarily exist - it exists and is legitimized through state force, and state force only (well, also through ideology and propaganda, but even these things still require a state to legitimize them). Why do you think things such as general strikes and many other working class methods of organizing are forbidden?

Whether you are interested in having a ferrari and steak dinners or not isn't relevant. The point is, the concept of the free-market is a complete sham, sold to humanity under popular buzzwords like "democracy", "freedom", and so forth, as its own enslavement. I wasn't referring to the state in the context of each individual state in the United States or strictly local governments, but rather in a general sense of the word - rule of law systems that encompass national governments, police, courts, military, etc, as well as international capitalist organizations like the UN or EU. All of these things exist because class antagonisms exist. Socialism isn't about being wealthy or rich - its about living with dignity and being free from exploitation by a ruling class and the state apparatus that protects it. Wealth being virtue is a social construct of capitalism due to its emphasis on money markets, commodity fetishism, and subjective value placed on (or taken from) the importance of particular skills and labor. I could care less about being wealthy, or owning excess material goods. However, I resent the fact I and the majority of society are forced to sell our labor to a boss to survive, and it is he/she, and not us, that reaps the benefits produced by said labor. Lets look at the cold hard facts: Capitalism rewards those who were born into the right family, were in the right place at the right time, and to a great extent, those who have the right skin color, are heterosexual, and have a penis. It punishes those unfortunate enough to be born into the "wrong" family and often those who do not match the common demographic of the ruling class through no fault of their own. It randomly chooses winners and losers at the roll of a dice - and for every winner there is 10's of millions of losers. There is hardly any justice in that. Life is far from simply being an economy of money and goods - there is something far more important that most people don't even think about (at least not in a economical context), and that is TIME.

Marx, by the way, was actually a supply-side economist - just that he (rightly) favored labor and not capital.