The Everlasting CCCP !

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Maniac
I am still amazed for instance when you said christianity has changed human nature over the period of 1000 years. Heck, I don't think you even need to follow one sociology class to have serious doubts about such a statement.

Ah, and the discussion finally brings up something interesting! ... only briefly, alas (but probably for the better).

[Pandemoniak]

General Tacticus, I have aquestion for you as well : How can someone be not totally free but freer ?

Liberty is indivisible; one cannot curtail a part of it without killing all of it. This little part you are curtailing is the very essence of my liberty; it is all of it. Through a natural, necessary, and irresistible movement, all of my liberty is concentrated precisely in the part, small as it may be, which you curtail. It is the story of Bluebeard's wife, who had an entire palace at her disposal, with full and complete liberty to enter everywhere, to see and to touch everything, except for one dreadful little chamber which her terrible husband's sovereign will had forbidden her to open on pain of death. Well, she turned away from all the splendours of the palace, and her entire being concentrated on the dreadful little chamber. She opened that forbidden door, for good reason, since her liberty depended on her doing so, while the prohibition to enter was a flagrant violation of precisely that liberty. It is also the story of Adam and Eve's fall. The prohibition to taste the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for no other reason than that such was the will of the Lord, was an act of atrocious despotism on the part of the good Lord. Had our first parents obeyed it, the entire human race would have remained plunged in the most humiliating slavery. Their disobedience has emancipated and saved us. Theirs, in the language of mythology, was the first act of human liberty.

[GeneralTacticus]

How can someone be not totally free but freer ?

Dammit, we need a :dumstruck: smiley.

Are you really so dense that you would argue one is not more free if one lives under a system where you are forbidden from spraying graffiti on Thursdays with green paint, than under one where you cannot speak to a foreigner without permission, but less free than under one where you can spray graffiti as much as you like? Total freedom is anarchy; no freedom is despotism. Most societies lie somewhere in the middle.

Liberty is indivisible; one cannot curtail a part of it without killing all of it. This little part you are curtailing is the very essence of my liberty; it is all of it.

I'll ask you to repeat that statemnt when the KGB break down your door and carry you off into the night for complaining about the price of bread. You may not be as free as you could be now, but you're a damn sight freer than those who lived under Hitler and Stalin.

It is the story of Bluebeard's wife, who had an entire palace at her disposal, with full and complete liberty to enter everywhere, to see and to touch everything, except for one dreadful little chamber which her terrible husband's sovereign will had forbidden her to open on pain of death. Well, she turned away from all the splendours of the palace, and her entire being concentrated on the dreadful little chamber. She opened that forbidden door, for good reason,

You obviosuly have a rather strange idea of 'good reason' if you think it entails doing exactly what you have been forbidden to do, for whatever reason.

since her liberty depended on her doing so, while the prohibition to enter was a flagrant violation of precisely that liberty.

Hardly. The palace was not hers; being allowed to make any use of it at all was a privilege, not a right. If the person to whom it belonged did not wish her to enter a certain part of it, she had no right to disobey him.

Tell me, do you consider it a violaton of your liberty that you are prohibited to enter female toilets? Surely, by your logic, this is a grave affront to your liberty and must be erased by doing precisely what you should not do.

The prohibition to taste the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for no other reason than that such was the will of the Lord, was an act of atrocious despotism on the part of the good Lord. Had our first parents obeyed it, the entire human race would have remained plunged in the most humiliating slavery. Their disobedience has emancipated and saved us. Theirs, in the language of mythology, was the first act of human liberty.

Given that, as far as the Bible was concerned, God had given the human race everything, including existence, it was hardly unreasonable that He place certain restrictions on what His creations chose to so with one another, if such was His will.

[Main_Brain]

When you are in a store, and have to choose between two similar products, same price etcetera: will you choose the one that has a familiar name, or one you haven't heard of ever before

The one with the Shiny cover.



//Based on Marketing thesis :=) and regarding the newer theorie that Brandloyality only goes so far

[GeneralTacticus]

Just something that needs to be pointed out:

Which European? British, owned by that Rupert Murdoch character?

Murdoch does not have a monpoly on the British media. He has an xcessive amount of power over it, as he owns quite a lot of it, along with media outlets in various other countries (something like 70% of the capital city newspapers in Australia are owned by him), he does not contorl the entire British media.

Besides, this would have to be the first case I've seen of anyone identifying the British media as part of the 'European media'.

[Jamski]

Re: Main_Brain's comment

Actually I have heard a theory that, when faced with this kind of decision, the sub-consience favors the product that you saw first. This is because the brain takes the first products as the "model" and compares it against the "other" in order to make a decision. If one product is clearly better than the other, for whatever reason, then this decision is easy, and often automatic. If, however, the products are very similar to each other, then this process can be confused, and the instinctive response is to choose what is familiar. (ie. BigName product) When there is no real familiar product, then the brain takes the next best option : the product that was seen first. Of course this happens much faster than we realise, and when questioned people often produce "false" justifications, but tests involving blind tasting of "a branded cola drink" where both cups contained the same drink, showed that in a large majority of cases, the first drink was found to be the preferred product, even when both we actually the same. Upon being questioned the consumers claimed that the second was "more sweet" etc, not realising that both cups were poured from the same bottle. This sub-concious desire to take the first product in preference to the second can be seen to be used in supermarkets, where the premuim products (ie. the ones that make the most profit for the supermarket) are placed at eye-level, and slightly below. The cheaper produts are often placed either on the top or bottom shelf, ensuring that they are seen second. Main_Brain's claim that he would buy the most shiny product is an example of companies using reflective packaging to literally "catch the eye" If it's shinier, then you'll see it first. Just another way of brainwashing the consumer...

-Jam

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

Are you really so dense that you would argue one is not more free if one lives under a system where you are forbidden from spraying graffiti on Thursdays with green paint, than under one where you cannot speak to a foreigner without permission, but less free than under one where you can spray graffiti as much as you like? Total freedom is anarchy; no freedom is despotism. Most societies lie somewhere in the middle.

Indeed total freedom is anarchy. But I guess you have much things to learn about Anarchism. Congratulations for recognizing Bakunin's "God and the State", by the way.

Liberty is indivisible; one cannot curtail a part of it without killing all of it. This little part you are curtailing is the very essence of my liberty; it is all of it.

I'll ask you to repeat that statemnt when the KGB break down your door and carry you off into the night for complaining about the price of bread. You may not be as free as you could be now, but you're a damn sight freer than those who lived under Hitler and Stalin.

It is the story of Bluebeard's wife, who had an entire palace at her disposal, with full and complete liberty to enter everywhere, to see and to touch everything, except for one dreadful little chamber which her terrible husband's sovereign will had forbidden her to open on pain of death. Well, she turned away from all the splendours of the palace, and her entire being concentrated on the dreadful little chamber. She opened that forbidden door, for good reason,

You obviosuly have a rather strange idea of 'good reason' if you think it entails doing exactly what you have been forbidden to do, for whatever reason.

With good reasons : as an act of human liberty, liberty motivating the act.

since her liberty depended on her doing so, while the prohibition to enter was a flagrant violation of precisely that liberty.

Hardly. The palace was not hers; being allowed to make any use of it at all was a privilege, not a right. If the person to whom it belonged did not wish her to enter a certain part of it, she had no right to disobey him.

Funny, I thought they were married and thus shared their property. You're talking like she, Bluebeard's wife, was also his property.

Tell me, do you consider it a violaton of your liberty that you are prohibited to enter female toilets? Surely, by your logic, this is a grave affront to your liberty and must be erased by doing precisely what you should not do.

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."

Indeed, it is a grave affront that it is forbidden. And guess what, I do not kill people not because it is forbidden, but because I believe this is not good.

The prohibition to taste the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for no other reason than that such was the will of the Lord, was an act of atrocious despotism on the part of the good Lord. Had our first parents obeyed it, the entire human race would have remained plunged in the most humiliating slavery. Their disobedience has emancipated and saved us. Theirs, in the language of mythology, was the first act of human liberty.

Given that, as far as the Bible was concerned, God had given the human race everything, including existence, it was hardly unreasonable that He place certain restrictions on what His creations chose to do with one another, if such was His will.

You know God actually doesnt exist. He's talking mythically, so either you missed something, either I missed your point.

[GeneralTacticus]

Indeed total freedom is anarchy.

At least we can agree on something.

But I guess you have much things to learn about Anarchism.

I need learn nothing about Anarchism if it involves no restraints being placed upon anybody (which is what total freedom is). If you think it's a good thing that someone can do what he likes, no matter what it may be (e.g. burning your hourse down), then you're beyond help.

With good reasons : as an act of human liberty, liberty motivating the act.

So one should do something simply because one is forbidden to do it? Nice logic

Funny, I thought they were married and thus shared their property.

Not necessarily. You said 'placed at her disposal'; i.e., she was allowed to use them. the palace was Bluebeard's, and even if he chose to give it to her, he remained within his rights to tell her that she could not enter that little chamber, as a condition of his giving I to her in the first place.

You're talking like she, Bluebeard's wife, was also his property.

She was not his property; the palace was. The palace being his property, he had every right to restrict her use of it if he wished.

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."

Sounds like Bakunin didn't believe that people could do wrong. ever heard of these people called 'criminals'?

Indeed, it is a grave affront that it is forbidden.

Why?

And guess what, I do not kill people not because it is forbidden, but because I believe this is not good.

And thus, if someone else does not believe it is bad, he can?

You know God actually doesnt exist.

Yes, of course I do. That's not the point.

He's talking mythically, so either you missed something, either I missed your point.

He was stating that God prohibiting Adam and Eve from tasting the forbidden fruit was wrong, because his only reason for doing so was that he didn't want them to. I'm point out that, if you accept the story within the context of the Bible, as you have to do if you want to judge whether or not God was 'rgiht' to do something, then you cannot say God was wrong for doing as he did.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

I need learn nothing about Anarchism if it involves no restraints being placed upon anybody (which is what total freedom is). If you think it's a good thing that someone can do what he likes, no matter what it may be (e.g. burning your hourse down), then you're beyond help.

It is not about restraints but about hierarchy. AN-archy --> No hierarchy. Its a good thing that people do what they like, AND, as Bakunin said, do the good not because they are forced to but because they "freely conceive it, want it, and love it." There you may ask the question of education.

So one should do something simply because one is forbidden to do it? Nice logic

Are you simple minded or what ? One shouldnt do something because it is forbidden, but because he wants to. And all who says "curiosity is a bad default" or "you shouldnt do that because it's forbidden", I call them obscurantists and fascists, respectively.

Not necessarily. You said 'placed at her disposal'; i.e., she was allowed to use them. the palace was Bluebeard's, and even if he chose to give it to her, he remained within his rights to tell her that she could not enter that little chamber, as a condition of his giving I to her in the first place.

That raise the question of property. But she is free to dispose of her own body and to move it wherever she likes. Especially in her home.

Sounds like Bakunin didn't believe that people could do wrong. ever heard of these people called 'criminals'?

No one is ever born bad, people are the product of their environment, and it is their environment that determines if they're good or bad. A criminial, like a Drone, is simply an untaught/uneducated and/or ignorant person.

Why?

Because it supposes *I* am not educated enough to know its unrespectful to go to Ladies', which is an affront, an insult.

And thus, if someone else does not believe it is bad, he can?

He can, but he wont, because he know it is not good.

He was stating that God prohibiting Adam and Eve from tasting the forbidden fruit was wrong, because his only reason for doing so was that he didn't want them to. I'm point out that, if you accept the story within the context of the Bible, as you have to do if you want to judge whether or not God was 'rgiht' to do something, then you cannot say God was wrong for doing as he did.

If you accept the story within the context of the Bible, indeed. But I do not accpet the Bible. Anyway, if you want to discuss theology, ok, but lets do it correctly then. Bakunin's point is not to judge God -- an entity that doesnt even exist cannot be judged -- byt to show the natural thrust of liberty, mythically speaking of Adam and Eve and of Bluebeard's wife.

[Pandemoniak]

First post updated with members list and musical feature on the Diderot's Quote, for those who wish, just click the link

[Jamski]

Comrade Pandemoniak, I note the members list is in alphabetical order. Please read my name carefully one more time I think I should be at the bottom

-Jam

[Pandemoniak]

All my apologies, I just copied/pasted while I knew you were War Of Art and not Art of War, since I named one my bases in the Challenge against Archaic "War of Art Exhibition".

[Pandemoniak]

Each memeber got his base, anyway :
Lucky's Talent University : Be trained by Lucky and become a Talent, move to this base.
Nueva Concordia : Couldnt think of anything else
Home'O'Drone : For Main Brain's suggestion. I think I gotta name another base "Right here Right there"
Waabsville. Not much original, but I had no other idea.
Among my favourites, also note : The CCCP's Datcha, Chomsky's Heir, Bakuningrad and Good Old Volgograd

[Jamski]

Was it a good exhibition (in both senses) ? Thanks for putting me back where I'm most comfortable - on the bottom of the list.

-Jam

[Main_Brain]

@War of Art:
Perfectly true

@Pandemoniak:
If anyone touches this base I'll have to whack them